I have no idea what California's laws are regarding the matter, or the laws governing any of the other participants. I'm just speaking in the general case, that some states allow it, and the argument that could be made.
Is "asymmetric" one-party consent a thing in any jurisdiction?
In a two-party consent state, the corporation just has a message that the call may be monitored or recorded and me staying on the line qualifies as 'consent'. I'm not provided with an option to talk without being recorded and for many functions companies won't deal with you except through these specific phone numbers.
However, if I tell the company I want to record them, they have very little reason to humor me. In practice, this means I'm almost always being recorded anyway, but I can't generally record them back. It looks to me very much like corporations get one-party consent, and I don't.
I've heard it argued that "This call may be monitored or recorded..." can be interpreted as consent, but I'm not sure how that works out in practice, especially since I'd be recording the individual employees (who may have consented to their employer, but haven't to me).
Not aware of this being legally tested but seems like a stupid hoop to meet the two party consent jurisdictions.
Then again, the caller could use similar reasoning of saying their assistant placed the call and waited on hold, and only then did they get on the line. Or really any phone conversation where a new party comes on the line after the recording has started.
I think the call center employee would have a pretty hard time arguing some expectation of privacy regarding your recording, when their employer has made it clear that the call can be recorded. I'd be interested in any precedents to the contrary though.
However, talking in terms of "consent" might just be a red herring. A company hasn't actually obtained your consent by playing a notice that they are recording the call. What they have done is destroy your expectation of privacy.
Each person you talk to needs to hear the disclosure.
I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to record calls if a company plays that message. It’s implicit that if they are notifying you the call is being recorded, that they are also aware and agree to being recorded.
For example, an employer with power over an employee can ask the employee to do something unscrupulous without worrying about being exposed if the law forbids the employee from being able to expose the employer.
For a large corporation versus small individual, I don’t see what the small individual would ever have to lose by being recorded (or gain by not being recorded). The small individual is never going to be in a position where they can twist the large corporation’s hand into doing something wrong, and if they were, then I would say the large corporation is the weaker party in that interaction.
Tricky.
I just heard that.
[1] - https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law