Google Voice and legality of Recording Calls in California

[GHG7F0]

I just defaulted July 1st. I started getting calls from Chase today and they informed me that they would be recording the call for quality assurance. I hit button 4 and Google Voice informed them the call was being recorded. They told me after putting me on hold that they are not authoring me to record the call. I then informed them that I would have to terminate the call then. They said they I authorized them to record the call on my card member agreement. I replied they could and it is only fair I do the same.

He told me quickly that I was late and needed to make payment. He also said they would call back if this wasn't done. I told them they are not authorized to call me at work and he said the number was already removed. I also told him I would take their call only if I'm allowed to record the call and I wished him a nice day.

What I would have told them is that I retained a attorney and will be filing. Should I really press the recording of the call and if so since California is a two party state do they need to actually consent or will the Google Voice informing them that the call is recorded enough?

Thanks...

[dman]

I may be wrong, but...

You don't need their consent...you simply have to notify them that the call's being recorded (which the Google Voice notification does for you). If they don't consent, they have an easy out...all they have to do is shut up and hang up.

[GHG7F0]

I may be wrong, but...

You don't need their consent...you simply have to notify them that the call's being recorded (which the Google Voice notification does for you). If they don't consent, they have an easy out...all they have to do is shut up and hang up.

The research I have done states you must have their consent. california courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded

[keepsmiling]

This brings up a question I have been meaning to ask. All my calls go straight to GV, which tells callers they have reached GV... seems obvious to me that consent is implied when they leave the message... any reason to think it's not? in other words, is any message left on a recording fair game? My pal Marshall keeps calling my cell and leaving messages without id'ing who he is calling for... is this a violation? I'd love to scare up some cash to finally pay a lawyer....

[sunshinepa]

Why not just ignore them from now on? They know they spoke with you so they can't harass family or freinds to find you now. Save yourself the grief, let Google get it and only answer calls you want to since it appears you will file soon. Once filed, answer and give them the case #.

I spoke to one creditor in 9 mos.......that was enough for me. All the rest went unanswered.

[dman]

The research I have done states you must have their consent. california courts have recognized "implied" consent as being sufficient to satisfy the statute where one party has expressly agreed to the taping and the other continues the conversation after having been informed that the call is being recorded

That's what I meant. If you STATE that you are recording the call...and they say you don't have their permission to...you don't have to stop recording (unless, of course, you say that you will stop). You've already told them the call is being recorded, if they don't want their voice digitally saved for your records, then they just need to hang up. Now, if you ASK if you can record, and they say no...then you can't record.

[GHG7F0]

I went ahead and left them a custom message on Google Voice letting them know my lawyers contact info. I will occasionally take calls to avoid them bothering the family/work.