Insights
Publications

Routine Recording Of Customer Service Calls – Standing Alone – Does Not Violate California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, According To Ninth Circuit

1/25/2013 Articles

Good news for companies that routinely record or monitor calls to or from California residents – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s January 17 decision in Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc. has made it harder for class action plaintiffs in federal court to allege an actionable claim under Section 632 of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and to obtain class certification.  In Faulkner, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s dismissal of a consumer’s CIPA claim in a putative class action for failure to state a claim.  Sections 632 and 637.2 of CIPA impose a $5,000 penalty for recording or monitoring “confidential communications” without the other party’s consent.  The California Supreme Court has explained that a communication is “confidential” under Section 632 of CIPA if a party to a conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded.  However, state and federal courts have disagreed regarding whether the content of the conversation has any bearing on that determination. 

 

The Ninth Circuit’s Faulkner decision concluded that content matters.  The court held that the plaintiff’s allegation that he called the defendant, his home security provider, to “dispute a charge” was insufficient to allege an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality.  According to the court, “too little is asserted in the complaint about the particular relationship between the parties, and the particular circumstances of the call, to lead to the plausible conclusion that an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality would have attended such a communication.”  The court suggests in a footnote that the plaintiff “might” have a claim if he provided sensitive information like his social security number or an unlisted phone number. 

 

Under Faulkner, merely alleging that a routine customer service call was recorded or monitored is not enough to state a Section 632 CIPA claim in federal court.  Further, because individual circumstances are now required, it will be more difficult for plaintiffs to allege a cognizable class and obtain class certification. 

 

While Faulkner is an important and positive development for companies that routinely record or monitor calls to or from California residents, that business practice still carries substantial risk.  For example, companies who routinely request personal information such as social security numbers before disclosing that the call may be recorded or monitored are still at risk of being sued in a call recording class action under Section 632 of CIPA.  Further, Section 632.7 of CIPA, which Faulkner did not address, prohibits intentionally recording all calls to or from cell phones and cordless phones, regardless of their confidentiality.  And some defendants will not be able to remove their cases from the California courts, where the pleading standards are not as exacting, and the case law is divided on the relevance of the content of the call under Section 632. 

 

Accordingly, companies that routinely record or monitor calls to or from California residents (or other States with dual-consent recording statutes) should consider employing the following practices:

  • For inbound calls, providing an automated warning that calls may be monitored or recorded before the caller is connected to a live agent.
  • For outbound calls, giving a warning before the person being called is recorded.
  • Providing live agent with scripts requiring them to give a warning at the outset of speaking to every new person.
  • If you have contracts with the customers calling / being called, including provisions (1) providing notice that calls may be monitored or recorded, (2) requiring arbitration of claims, and/or (3) providing that the laws of a single-consent State govern the party’s relationship.
  • If any third-party vendors make customer service calls on your behalf, including provisions in your contracts with those vendors requiring the vendors to comply with all laws related to call recording and to indemnify you for any claims arising out of calls that they make on your behalf.
  • Obtaining insurance coverage for defense of third-party claims for unlawful call recording and invasion of privacy.

Firm Highlights

News

Farella Names Ashley Breakfield and Cynthia Castillo As Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinders

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that senior associates  Ashley Breakfield and Cynthia Castillo were selected to be members of the 2022 class of Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinders. The...

Read More
News

Kelly Matayoshi Recognized With 2021 Outstanding Barristers Award

Read More
News

Tony Schoenberg Appointed to Bar Association of San Francisco Board of Directors

Anthony P. Schoenberg headshot
Read More
Publication

Upside: Litigation Trends In the Private Equity and Venture Capital Space

In today's Upside episode, we explore fiduciary duty in the venture capital context. Can owners of a venture capital management company act in ways that explicitly disadvantage their business partners? Can they agree to...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Shortlisted for 2022 Benchmark Litigation Awards

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel has been shortlisted for two 2022 Benchmark Litigation Awards. The firm was shortlisted for “San Francisco Firm of the Year” and Douglas R. Young was shortlisted...

Read More
Publication

The FASTER Act: What Companies Need To Know About the New Food Allergy Law

While the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act (FASTER Act) only makes a minor change to add sesame as a major food allergen, it signals the government’s intent to closely examine food...

Read More
News

Janice Reicher Named a 2022 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Fellow

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Janice Reicher has been named a member of the 2022 class of Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellows. Janice joins a select group of...

Read More
Publication

No Quarter: What Claims Doesn’t Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Protect Platform Companies Against?

Depending on what you read or who you talk to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) (CDA) is either a tool of censorship, a shield of Big Tech that...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Announces Five New Partners

Read More