Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Webinar Recap! Avoiding Liability and Limiting Exposure Under California’s Call Recording and Monitoring Privacy Laws

By Robert B. Milligan on June 4, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

We are pleased to let you know that the webinar “Avoiding Liability and Limiting Exposure Under California’s Call Recording and Monitoring Privacy Laws” is now available as a podcast and webinar recording.

In Seyfarth’s first installment of its 2014 Class Action Webinar series, attorneys discussed how plaintiffs’ attorneys are increasingly filing class actions in California seeking to apply the state’s privacy laws to routine telephone communications between businesses and their customers.

As a conclusion to this well-received webinar, we compiled a list of key takeaway points, which are listed below.

  • CIPA applies to both in-bound and outbound calls. In some cases, companies may have compliant in-bound call procedures with appropriate disclaimers but lack such procedures with respect to outbound calls. Prudent companies will ensure that they have appropriate disclaimers for both in-bound and outbound. They should also look for opportunities to notify their customers of monitoring and call recording for quality assurance in other communications with customers, such as billing and on their website.
  • The use of a standard, nonbypassable disclaimer advising callers that their calls may be monitored or recorded is imperative.  Be sure callers hear the disclaimer before any recording or monitoring commences, ensure that the disclaimer plays for each call your company places or receives, and provide multilingual versions of the disclaimer where appropriate.  Consider using the sample language included in the presentation materials.
  • The recent trend is for consumer plaintiffs to bring CIPA claims under Section 632.7 as opposed to Section 632 to avoid the “confidential communication” requirement that may likely involve individualized inquiries that impede the ability to obtain class certification.
Photo of Robert B. Milligan Robert B. Milligan
Read more about Robert B. MilliganEmail
  • Posted in:
    Class Action & Mass Torts
  • Blog:
    Consumer Class Defense Blog
  • Organization:
    Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo