Podcast Episode 181: Making Audio Content Work for Your Firm
[WEBINAR] Exploring the CPRA’s Investigatory Privilege
Judge Learned Hand, American Idol?
Introduction - The Supreme Court of California, interpreting California Penal Code section 632.7, recently held in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. that cellular or cordless phone conversations cannot be recorded by nonparties or...more
On April 1, the California Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. LoanMe Inc. that California Penal Code Section 632.7 prohibits both parties to a communication and nonparties, such as an individual who covertly intercepts and...more
The California Supreme Court overturned the California Court of Appeals to hold that a party to a phone call can violate California Penal Code section 632.7 by recording the conversation without the consent of the other...more
In the age of smartphones, virtually everyone has a recording device at his or her fingertips—including employees. This can present challenges in the workplace. For example, smartphones and other technology enable employees...more
Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 640 (2018)- Summary: Installing recording device and recording calls on company phones renders actions intentional under California Invasion of Privacy Act. ...more
California court: Employers unwise to permit use of company telephones for personal calls — at least if the employer plans to record those calls. Two-party consent means two-party consent: All parties to a call must be...more
Many businesses monitor or record customer service, telemarketing, and other telephone calls with consumers to help them improve customer service and for evidentiary reasons. Under federal and many state laws, calls may...more