Marriott Recording of Wireless Telephone Calls California Class Action

The laws for recording telephone calls differ from state to state. The complaint for this class action alleges that Marriott International, Inc. violated California laws because it makes “unauthorized and illegal recordings” of calls consumers make to its telephone lines, without warning them that the calls are being recorded.

The class for this action is all persons in California whose inbound or outbound cordless or cellular telephone conversation(s) were audio recorded by Marriott or its employees or agents from May 6, 2021 to the present.

The California Legislature passed the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in 1967, replacing previous laws which permitted the recording of telephone conversations with the consent of one party to the call. It added to the law in 1992, when cellular and other cordless phones became popular, forbidding the intentional recording of all communications, not just confidential ones, on cellular and cordless phones without the consent of all parties to the call.

The complaint alleges, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Marriott owns and operates a hotel identified in the complaint as “Le Meridien Dallas, The Stoneleigh.” According to the complaint, the plaintiff in this case, Faisal Moledina, called the hotel on April 14, 2022, in the evening, using his cordless telephone.

The recording that answered gave him a number of options, the complaint says, and he pushed 1 to make a reservation. The complaint alleges, “At no point during the call to the Hotel’s phone number was there any form of recording disclosure nor any beeping sounds to indicate to [Moledina] that he was being recorded by [Marriott].”

Moledina talked to representatives of the hotel, asking whether it was less expensive for him to reserve a room directly with the hotel than to reserve a room through third-party websites. According to Moledina, the representative told him that the hotel had a price-match guarantee if he could find better rates through any third-party website.

Wanting to make sure he wouldn’t lose this benefit, the complaint alleges, he asked if the call was being recorded. “In response,” the complaint claims, Marriott’s “agent attempted to evade [Moledina’s] question, which prompted [Moledina] to ask a second time whether [he] was being recorded.” The complaint alleges that the agent again tried to evade the question, but when pressed a third time, admitted that the call was being recorded.

The complaint alleges, “Subsequently…, [Moledina] heard successive beeping sounds and his call with [Marriott’s] agent was disconnected.”

The sole count is the illegal recording of a wireless or cellular telephone call.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Privacy
Tags: Recording Telephone Calls Without Consent, Your Privacy