I live in Arizona. Only one party must be notified of recording calls. Could I use the "this call may be recorded for quality control purposes" as my notification to the company that I'LL be recording the call since they've already notified me that they might be recording the call?

I would be sure to tell them you are recording. Puts the fear of the Goddess in them.

If the only way you can deal with your problem is to call them and be recorded, then you should have the right to record them. Not being able to, is total b.s! Sounds like these guidelines came in the same handbook that recommended the current binding arbitration techniques.

@SoCalGNX: Then they just hang up on you. Besides, they already said that you may record the call, didn't they? Goes both ways.

Illinois' two-party status is somewhat in question.

Illinois is, by statute, a two-party state. However, case law from both the IL Supreme Court and various Illinois appellate courts have declared Illinois a one-party state in the case of private citizens (businesses and plain folks - NOT law enforcement). The reigning consensus is that one-party consensual recording is merely "enhanced note-taking" and since some folks have total recall without recording, how can the other party have any expectation of privacy to a conversation held with another person.

([www.callcorder.com])

nice...now i can record my gf's drunk phone calls to me late at nite and play them back to her the next day. hahaaa...

Here's another question: if you're in a two-party state and can't get the other party to agree, what if you go to a Federal building and call from a payphone? I'm talking setting up one of those low-tech suction cup microphones on the handset, plugged into a tape recorder? You're on federal property, at that point does Federal law (which only mandates one-party consent) prevail?

If you live in a one-party state, why bother notifying them and risk a hang-up? You are one of the parties, so record away, absolutely within your rights, without a word and be happy.

"This call may be recorded," Hmmm... I interpret that as giving consent for the call to be recorded.

I thought Nevada was a one party state, hence them recording Crank Yankers and tons of Call Centers being in Las Vegas?

I have to imagine that if the company tells you that the cal may be recorded that the reps are aware that they could be recorded. IANAL, but why would it be required to then ask the rep for their permission? Both parties are aware that recording could be happening... where's the problem?

My recollection from way back in the day in Bus Law class--is that you can use recorded phone calls as evidence to defend yourself from legal action with no consent, but cannot use them to institute legal action under any circumstance. Is this not correct?

@Miguel Valdespino: Agreed. I can't imagine them having much of a case against you if they claim they might be recording the call. The worst I see happening is that a judge rules the recording inadmissible for a related case.

Anyway, I'm disappointed to learn I'm in a two-party state.

That's actually an interesting legal question. Since almost any call centre is going to recording you, can you record them in return without notification? Once one party has announced call recording, does that give the other party free reign to record as well? Obviously, this only applies to two-party notification states.

But the big question which I never see answered is whether the law just applies to using the recording in a court of law. If I just record a call for my own amusement, does any of this matter. The same would go for posting the recording of the call on-line to humiliate the company into doing the right thing. In other words, do the laws only apply if you want the recording to be admissible in court?

@mycroft2000: Yeah, pretty much. One-party just means that you can't eavesdrop (which would be zero-party).

I just tell the recording that the call may be recorded. Not my fault that they don't have a live person answer the phone.

If the person you are speaking with is not in your state does it matter? Can I (in Colorado) record someone in California? Does it matter who called whom?

Better question: Does the operative contract (credit agreement, mortgage etc) have a governing law clause and is recording legit under that state's laws since thats where the litigation would take place?

Focus: What are you really going to do with recorded phone calls other than post them online and in doing so expose what most people already know, that by and large customer service sucks?

As stated above, until a consumer is sued for recording, we won't really know. For what it's worth, I have recorded numerous calls for a variety of reasons (all for my own protection) and never been sued. In fact, when presenting my recorded evidence, I have never once had anyone ask me if I had permission to record. They are usually to stunned at the fact that I have called them on their BS in a way they can't refute to start asking legal questions. IMO a suit won't happen, it will cost them more than it would to just fix the problem. Just my take on it, as I said, so far so good. I live in California.

@chrisgoh: That is my understanding, at least in CA., htat these laws only apply to a recording being admissable in court. I may be wrong, I am not a lawyer, I only work for one.

Simple solution: record anyway, or rather, randomly. If someone else "may" be recording for quality purposes, then when you get a rep, let them know also. I know recordings of my phone calls with Verizon would go a long way toward quality improvements.

If they hang up on you, call back and escalate. Keep escalating until someone tells you why they are hanging up for a bahavior they assume you agree to.

I take the "This call may be recorded" message you get when calling many companies as permission to record.

They are telling me that I may record the call.

@alhypo: If you parse through these statutes, there is no reason to beleive that the notification that the company is recording is effective to permit a customer recording. They tend to say something to the effect that no recording is to be made unless [one or both] parties have been notified that the recording is going to occur. From a legal analysis standpoint, it refers back to the specific recording.

@GiselleBeardchen: No. Recording can be used both to defend and instigate a case. If I record say Worst Buy telling me I will be reimbursed for an item and they later renig, if I decide to sue, I can use that call in court to prove my small claims against them.

And whether they will agree after the fact or not is not relevant, they have consented by virtue of their own message. Unless a company has no "may be recorded" message AND you live in a two party state, you have every right to record a call.

I suggest checking out [www.321calllog.com]

Well, they tell you when you call in to a call center that your call could be recorded because they are required by law to notify you. At that point you have the ability to end the call, if you don't wish to be recorded... If you continue with the call it essentially acts as your approval to be recorded. Now if you call into the call center and think that them notifying you that it MAY be recorded counts as the CAE being notified that you are recording the call, think again. Besides being unethical, it won't count as both parties being notified under the guidelines of the law. Now if I were the call center rep and you notified me that you were going to record the call, I would decline and ask that you not record. If you refused my request to not record, I would simply end the call. I don't want to end up on some random web site (no offense to this site) because you felt entitled to something that you didn't qualify for and I wouldn't budge on it. (Friends and Co-Workers tell me I'm a stickler for the rules)

@goller321: IF they agreed to the recording or you were in a one-party state. If the recording was obtained illegally, it is not admissible in course.

The obvious solution is to tell the rep, then say "just kidding" or agree to stop, then edit that part of the recording out later ;)

@sonichghog: that's the best answer i ever heard on this subject.

Always record, record, record, record. I tell them I am recording and if they say that they do not want to be recorded or say it is illegal, I tell them I'm going to do it anyway and then let the judge decide if it can be used in court when I sue them.

At least some two-party consent states (e.g. Maryland) make it a *felony* as well as grounds for civil action to record phone conversations without consent of both parties. This was the basis for Linda Tripp's indictment for taping her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky ([en.wikipedia.org]).

So, frankly, "let's see if anyone gets sued, we'll then have a case, and then we'll know" is not especially great legal advice.

That said, it would be interesting to see exactly *which* customer service lines will hang up if you tell them politely that you are recording the call. If this is really a written or de-facto policy of certain companies, it is the sort of thing that could be usefully documented and brought to the attention of the media.

How about this...
Get hold music for your house, and put the 'this call may be...' in the music, then put the agent (where there call center has the 'this may be..' bit) on hold for a bit. when you come back on the line start recording if they didn't hang up.
If a recorded message is good enough for me to accept this contract, why wouldn't it be good enough for them?

If their recording says, "This call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes," aren't they giving me permission to record the call? It does not say "We the company may record this call..." it says that the call MAY be recorded. They have therefore consented to my monitoring of the call as long as it is for training or quality assurance purposes. This is absolutely a quality assurance purpose, I am assuring I receive quality service.

Am I wrong?

The "This call may be recorded" message is indeed justification for your recording. The call center rep is notified by virtue of working in the facility that his or her calls may be recorded. He or she already knows that the call may be recorded, thus satisfying the provision that the party on the other end of your line be aware that recording may be taking place.

If there is no notification by the other party, you will need to state your intent.

@Ickypoopy: Logically? No. Legally? Yes.

But I want to know, what if the call center is in another state, or hell, even another country...does Federal law take jurisdiction in this matter? Cause I sure as hell know none of the companies I would call are based out of Florida

Being in Mass, I've used the two-party consent law to befuddle some telephone reps because the first thing I say to them is that I don't consent to having this conversation recorded.

There is no way that the company's recording, which says the call may be recorded, gives the customer consent to record the call. That makes absolutely no sense and I can't believe you guys are arguing that it does - you're feigning naivete to suit your purposes and I don't think that would go over well in court. That notice is there to notify you that the company might be recording the call for training or quality assurance purposes. This is something completely different than the customer recording the call to later make a case that the company didn't do something they said they would. If you can't see the difference between these two things, then go ahead and record the calls and if you get hauled into court, see how it goes over.

What if you're in a one-party state calling a company in a two-party state?

@Catperson:

Even if we're willing to concede that they reason the company records the call is for training purposes, the reason is irrelevant. Legally speaking, why it's being recorded really doesn't matter. If a requirement that I speak with them is to assent to their recording of a call (and I'd wager that EVERY call is recorded), then the corollary is that they themselves consent to being recorded.

It's really impossible for them to claim in court "We didn't know we were being recorded" when they are recording.

@Parliboy: So I guess you're a lawyer. I freely admit that I'm not, but I'm coming at the issue from a logical standpoint. Also, it's not just why it's being recorded, it's who is doing the recording and the permanence of the recording. They never agreed to YOU recording them. They only notified you that THEY MIGHT be recording you. Completely different.

Companies who record calls may purge them every so often, or, who knows, maybe they aren't subject to subpoena. So they could argue that they didn't know they were being recorded in such a way that would come back to be used in a case against them in court a year (or insert your own time period here) later.

Oh, and usually EVERY call is NOT recorded. My husband worked for one small company that did that, but it's very rare. The other three (much larger) companies we've worked for only recorded a random sampling of calls.

@parliboy:
I agree. I can't see a court holding that it is OK for the company to record the call, yet find it "illegal" for the customer to do so. It's not logical to assume that in such a situation it is ok for party A to record but not ok for party B to record. Further, I agree that the "reason" the company is recording them has little relevance.

@Catperson:
That's not entirely true anymore. WIth the availability of cheap mass storage and the digitization of call center phone systems, many companies are going to a system where they can and do record every single call. Further, you're argument that YOU consented to THEM recording you is illogical. BOTH parties consented to the call being recorded in general, who makes the recording is of no significance.

I've been recording for years...

@Pylon83: This is the last time I'm going to argue this because I truly don't care if a whole army of Consumerist readers record all their calls, but it's definitely not the same thing. If I tell you that I'm going to record a call I'm having with you, and you agree to that, I control the recording - it's in my ownership and I can do with it what I please, as long as it's within the limits of the law. If you then decide to record me on that same call but don't tell me and then use that recording for something, I'm going to be pretty irritated because I never even knew you had the recording. My point is that no one is consenting to the call being recorded in general. They are consenting to the company recording the call for a specific purpose. Nothing else.

Florida law state:
(d) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.

As I see it there is a huge difference between consent and notification. If I say "here have some money" that is consent, if you say "I am taking your money" that is notification.

Any law dogs out there want to correct me if I am wrong?

@Catperson: Going by your logic you agree to being recorded for training and quality assurance. That binds them to using the recording ONLY for training and quality assurance, NOT legal action, promotion or any other use.

@Catperson: Sorry did not see your last post before typing.