In Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., the Supreme Court today interprets a state statute as requiring a party, and not just an eavesdropper, to a call involving a cell or cordless phone to have consent from those on the call before recording it. Violation of the statute — Penal Code section 632.7 — carries exposure to both criminal and civil penalties.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye says its construction of the statute “advances the Legislature’s apparent intent by protecting privacy in covered communications to a greater degree” than if, as the defendant asserted, the consent requirement applies only to eavesdroppers. The court says it’s aligning itself with a majority of federal district courts that have considered the issue.
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s published decision.