California has in its Penal Code an Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) that prohibits the recording or interception of private communications, under certain circumstances, without the consent of both parties to the communication. The complaint for this class action alleges that Pricelin.com, LLC has violated this law by recording telephone conversations between its representatives and consumers without first getting the consent of the consumers.
The Class for this action is all persons in California whose inbound or outbound telephone conversations were recorded without their consent by Priceline.com or its agents, between March 10, 2019 and March 10, 2020.
Plaintiff Ruth Collins made a phone call to Priceline on her cell phone sometime around July 2019. She made the call in reference to a complaint she had filed against Priceline with the Better Business Bureau. The complaint alleges that during the call, the parties discussed Collins’s “personal and sensitive information.”
The Priceline representative or employee Collins spoke to did not ask Collin’s permission to record the call. In fact, the complaint alleges that Collins was not aware that the call was being recorded until near the end.
The complaint explains the law this way: “California Penal Code §632 prohibits one party to a telephone call from intentionally recording the conversation without the knowledge or consent of the other. Penal Code §632 is violated the moment the recording is made without the consent of all parties thereto, regardless of whether it is subsequently disclosed. The only intent required by Penal Code §632 is that the act of recording itself be done intentionally.”
A subsequent section of the Penal Code, §632.7, prohibits such recording specifically when one of the parties is on a cellular telephone.
According to the complaint, intentionality exists in this case; it claims that Priceline’s “employees and agents are directed, trained and instructed to, and do, record[] the telephone conversations with the public, including California residents.”
The complaint further alleges, “It is [Priceline’s] pattern and practice to record incoming calls made … by California residents. The calls are about individuals’ finances and debt. [Priceline does] not inform, or warn, the California residents, including [Collins], that the telephone calls may be or will be recorded. There was no pre-call recorded message. [Priceline’s] representatives did not disclose or inform [Collins] that the call was being recorded till nearly the end of the call.”
The complaint claims that the statute of limitations should be tolled because it was not possible for callers to Priceline to know that their calls were being recorded unless they were told.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Privacy
Most Recent Case Event
Priceline Recording of California Telephone Calls Complaint
March 10, 2020
California has in its Penal Code an Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) that prohibits the recording or interception of private communications, under certain circumstances, without the consent of both parties to the communication. The complaint for this class action alleges that Pricelin.com, LLC has violated this law by recording telephone conversations between its representatives and consumers without first getting the consent of the consumers.
Priceline Recording of California Telephone Calls ComplaintCase Event History
Priceline Recording of California Telephone Calls Complaint
March 10, 2020
California has in its Penal Code an Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) that prohibits the recording or interception of private communications, under certain circumstances, without the consent of both parties to the communication. The complaint for this class action alleges that Pricelin.com, LLC has violated this law by recording telephone conversations between its representatives and consumers without first getting the consent of the consumers.
Priceline Recording of California Telephone Calls Complaint