A number of companies, including jewelry purveyor Swarovski AG, are suspected of recording phone calls with customers in violation of California state laws. Swarovski is only one of a number of companies being investigated over allegations of violating state privacy laws. Complaints that have been filed allege that these merchants and service providers recorded telephone conversations with customers without first providing notification and getting consent.

While these incidents may have been the result of oversight, the fact remains that recording a telephone call without knowledge and consent of all involved parties is an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, unless the recording is in connection with a criminal investigation and there is a court order to that effect, it may also be illegal under California law.

Recording Phone Calls and California State Law

The Golden State has long been vigilant in guarding the privacy of those who live and work there. In fact, the right to privacy has been enshrined in the state’s constitution since 1849, and has continued to be amended over the decades as new communications technologies have been developed.

Under California’s “two-party” consent law, any business entity or private individual who makes or receives a telephone call must get the consent of the other party before recording the conversation by clearly notifying them. The other party can then refuse by simply ending the call. However, if they are not notified, they are denied the opportunity to withhold their consent.

Violators can be liable for up to $5000 per violation, or triple the amount of resultant damages. Further, in the 1989 case California v. Gibbons, a California appellate court ruled that the law extended to video recordings as well.

The Swarovski Lawsuit

In 2015, Swarovski AG, a jewelry company based in Liechtenstein, was the named defendant in a class action lawsuit involving unauthorized solicitation of credit card information. Plaintiffs alleged that company representatives asked customers to provide personally identifying information, including email addresses, place of residence and personal phone numbers – allegedly in violation of California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

While Swarovski denied the allegations, they did agree to a settlement in which class members received vouchers, valued at between $15 and $50, good toward any purchases.

What About Recording Phone Calls for “Training Purposes”?

It is not unusual for businesses to make an announcement such as “This call may be recorded for training purposes.” Legally, this constitutes notification, and by remaining on the line, you implicitly grant consent. If you do not consent to being recorded, you must terminate the conversation by hanging up.

What Other Companies Are Being Investigated?

Companies currently being investigated for allegedly recording phone calls without the consent of the parties involved include:

• Cannondale Bicycle Corporation
• Czech Airlines
• Dermalogica
• Drs. Foster & Smith
• Mears Transportation Group
• Southwest Rapid Rewards (limited to 800-445-5764 calls)
• United Airlines Pet Safe (limited to 800-575-3335 calls)

If you had a phone conversation with any of the companies listed above and were not advised that you were being recorded, you may be eligible to participate in a class action lawsuit.