LAWS ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE: “The LA Times’ Subscriber Services breaks California laws on recording people without their consent by calling me — at my home! — and announcing that they’re recording me.”

UPDATE: Actual California lawyer Eugene Volokh emails:

Glenn: I think Amy’s analysis might well be mistaken, and the L.A. Times might well not be breaking California law. Two-party consent is required only for confidential communications, defined as “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”

The announcement of the recording suggests that this is indeed a “circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be … recorded,” since the caller said it was being recorded. See also Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002) (endorsing the view that “a conversation is confidential if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded”). Perhaps I’m mistaken, but that’s what seems to me to be the rule.

I realize that you were just quoting Alkon’s statement, and not expressly endorsing it; but since she’s accusing the L.A. Times of violating the law, and the accusation appears to likely be incorrect, I thought it might be noting that the Times’ behavior might well be quite legal.

That makes sense, though I wonder if they’re already recording even before the announcement has played. And even if legal, it seems a bit heavyhanded and intrusive. Then again, I hate pretty much all robocalls so I may be prejudiced. I just got one tonight — I think, but am not sure, that it was about the Insta-daughter’s emergency room visit for which we’ve never gotten a bill — where it rattled off a lengthy toll-free number, an even lengthier reference number that I was to use, and then hung up without repeating before I could even find a pen.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails: “Just to let you know, I work for a major cell company and we have to occasionally make outbound calls (for technical reasons here but some departments to sales) and record calls. Largely, to insure that reps aren’t calling customers and either berating/harassing them or making offers that cannot possibly be honored by anybody, which does happen. The caller can refuse recording at which point we will disconnect. Its done, frequently, to insure that the service is satisfactory, not to annoy customers.”