I did do some research previously about the legality of recording phone conversations in the state of California, and I know I have the law on my side. In support of my argument:
California Penal Code ยงยง 631, 632 state that both parties must consent to recording of a conversation, and since at the beginning of every call I’ve made to Sears there has been a statement indicating “This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes” or a similar statement of similar wording, there has been no expectation of privacy on my part and no reason to believe the call was confidential or privileged. I was fully within my rights to record the conversations.
Nixon Peabody LLC, in a primer on a recent California Supreme Court ruling, point out that in the state of California, all parties must consent to the recording of a conversation over the telephone, even if a party is outside of the state. I believe the ruling in Kelly v. Salomon Smith Barney was with regards to calls originating outside of California, but the point is that in the state of California, I’ve met the more stringent statute’s requirements for legally recording a telephone conversation.
Now, the guy I talked with today may simply have been complying with Sears’ policy on speaking with a customer while knowingly being recorded. As you all can hear, though, it is obvious that Sears was recording the conversation based on the loud *beep* when he picked up the phone. Why would he want to talk with Sears recording the conversation, but not me recording the conversation? Like I said before, Sears is either grossly incompetent or full of lies. I don’t think that either one is very attractive for them.
We’ll see what happens first: legal action against me by Sears or me getting my refund.