Attorney Adrian Bacon, Partner at The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. recently argued Smith v LoanMe to the California Supreme Court. The case is about the importance of telephone privacy, which directly impacts every single citizen of the State of California. Historically, California has been held by the Supreme Court to be an all party consent state, where citizens expect that if a call they are participating in is being recorded, then they will be told as much at the outset of the call. The California Supreme Court is currently considering two possible interpretations of Cal. Penal Code § 632.7, which generally prohibits surreptitious recordation of wireless telephone calls. Smith contends that § 632.7 prohibits secret recordation of wireless telephone calls both by parties to the call, and third party eavesdroppers alike, whereas LoanMe argues that the statute does not apply to parties to the call, as the statute prohibits only secret recordation by third party interlopers who have hacked into a phone call.
California consumers increasingly utilize wireless devices for the majority of the telephone communications. Moreover, some case law has suggested that California Penal Code § 632 is an imperfect vehicle for class action litigation, whereas case law has generally held that § 632.7 claims may be more appropriate for class action treatment. Thus, the outcome of this case could, in large part, decide the future of class action litigation for secret recording practices by companies of their customers under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 630 et. seq.
As always, The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman continues to advocate relentlessly on behalf of consumers throughout California and the rest of the country. We will keep our audience informed as this important case makes it way through the courts.
Click the link here to watch the video transcript of Mr. Bacon’s arguments https://jcc.granicus.com/player/clip/1876?view_id=12&redirect=true (start time hour 2:14)