Anderson Corporation and subsidiary Renewal by Anderson are facing a new California phone recording lawsuit, alleging the company violated state privacy laws when contacting the plaintiff.

The California phone recording lawsuit alleges the company recorded him without his consent, which is a violation of the California Privacy Act.

Plaintiff John L. filed this California phone recording lawsuit alleging that it was the company’s policy to record phone conversations of customers who called the company to schedule an in-home consultation.

Anderson Corporation is an international window and door company, which offers in-home consultations, as well as custom manufacturing and installation while using a wide range of specialists through networks in different states like California.

Like many other consumers, John says he reached out through the Renewal by Anderson website to request an in-home consultation. This required his contact information, with the company contacting him just a day later.

According to the California phone recording lawsuit, John received a call from an Anderson representative on Aug. 26, 2018 to schedule the consultation. During this call, John believes his conversation had been recorded even though there had been no disclosures given at any point during the call.

According to the California phone recording lawsuit, John believes his phone call was recorded because it is allegedly company policy to record conversations for customers that call to schedule consultation appointments, as well as when the representative calls to confirm the appointment.

The California phone recording lawsuit also alleges the Anderson Corporation may also record outgoing calls as well, which would have also violated John’s privacy.

John states that because the Anderson Corporation operates in the state of California, the company is subject to the state’s privacy laws and should have confirmed that their policies had followed these.

Overview of California Call Recording Laws

Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, all parties involved in a conversation must give their consent before the conversation can be recorded. This means that there are very little exceptions in which call recording can be legally done without proper disclosure.

This especially applies to businesses operating in the state of California which have designated phone lines for customer service. While it is common practice for companies to record conversations for customer service training, it is important for them to disclose potential call recording to their customers.

This is typically given at the beginning of a call with an artificial voice, with the customer then asked to either stay on the line or press a button on their dial pad to indicate consent. It is important to note that staying on the line is considered implied consent, which meets California call recording requirements.

John alleges the Anderson representatives failed to do any of this, and recorded him without his permission. John is seeking damages for all call recording violations in his California phone recording lawsuit, along with any other relevant damages.

California consumers who are considering filing legal action for call recording violations, should keep a log of all relevant conversations including date and time of call and if a call recording disclosure was given.

This California Phone Recording Lawsuit is Case No. 18-cv-37047, in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County.