If you received a call from a Swarovski contact number, your call may have been recorded without your consent.

Legal experts are investigating claims that several businesses may have violated California law by recording calls without consent. The Swarovski contact number is among the customer service lines being investigated.

In the California constitution, the state’s citizens are entitled to an inalienable right to privacy. Stemming from the very foundation of the state’s government, California has some of the strictest privacy laws in America. One of the most powerful privacy laws in the state is the California Invasion of Privacy Act which was passed by the state’s government in 1967 to combat the growing threat of privacy invasion using technology.

Numerous breaches of privacy using technological means are prohibited under the Invasion of Privacy Act, including the recording of calls without the consent of all parties. The act specifically prohibits “maliciously and without the consent of all parties to the communication, [intercepting], [receiving], or [assisting] in intercepting or receiving a communication” between cell phones, landline phones, and radio telephones.

Some businesses prevent being persecuted under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act by including a warning message at the beginning of their calls. This informs call recipients that their call may be recorded. It is generally considered consenting to the recording of a call by staying on the line after such a warning. However, calls from a Swarovski contact number may not have given the other party this notice, meaning that these calls may have been recorded without consent.

Businesses may attempt to dodge California call recording lawsuits by claiming that they recorded calls for training or customer service purposes. However, the intent behind call recording is not considered by the law. Instead, the California Invasion of Privacy Act only examines whether or not all parties consented to the recording of calls.

Consumers who received a call from a Swarovski contact number but did not hear a call recording warning may have had their call recorded by the business without their consent. An invasion of privacy caused by illegal call recording may entitle consumers to file a California call recording lawsuit. For every time their call to a business number was recorded without consent, consumers may be able to collect up to $5,000 under the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

In some cases, businesses choose to settle call recording lawsuits against them rather than risking the costs associated with litigation and the uncertainty of a trial verdict. Although the compensation from settlement varies unlike a verdict under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, this may provide another avenue for consumers to recover compensation for having their call recorded without consent.

Other businesses currently involved in the investigation include Dermalogica, Drs. Foster & Smith, Mears Transportation Group, Romano’s Macaroni Grill, Southwest Rapid Rewards, United Airlines PetSafe, Cannondale Bicycle Corporation, and Czech Airlines.