A growing number of states require two-party consent to any monitoring or recording of business phone calls. And, if a recent court case is any guide, those states are ready to punish businesses that violate the rules … even if the calls originate in a different state.
The case: Two brokerage-firm clients who lived in California often spoke via phone with their stockbrokers in Atlanta. But after a dispute led the two clients to file fraud claims against the brokerage firm, they discovered that their phone calls had been recorded.
They sued again and won, alleging violations of California privacy laws that mandate a higher level of call-monitoring consent. (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, No. S124739, CA, 2006)
The case pitted two states’ competing laws over a tricky question: When a call is placed from one state to another, which state’s law on telephone recording applies?
The issue arose because Georgia law permit...(register to read more)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- One way to stop retaliation cases: Evenly enforce sick-leave documentation rules
- Court: Employee who agrees to arbitration must stick to it
- Rid handbooks of risky outdated policies
- DOL releases regulatory agenda for remainder of 2014, early 2015