Recording Consent Laws – What to Know

One of the questions we get often is about the legality of recording conference calls. Recent events have raised the question of when is it legal to record a call and, most important, how do you know?

There are two kinds of recording laws – one party and all party consent.

One party consent means there must be at least one person being recorded to agree and everyone else does not need to be notified. Generally speaking this means that a person can record their own phone calls without letting the other person know about the recording.

All party consent means exactly what it sounds like – if you're going to record a conference call or meeting, you must have the consent of anyone who is in attendance. References to two-party consent makes an assumption that there are only two people on the conference, but be advised if you're in a state that is referred to as two-party, and you have three people on the conference, everyone must know about the recording.

Most states have adopted the federal policy of one-party consent, but there are a number of states that require all party consent (California being one of them) and I came across this recording resource for journalists that break down the requirements by state.

Federal law prohibits recording any conversation outside of one-party consent. So if you had an idea of setting up a microphone to hear what people are saying about you – think again, it's not legal.

For conference calls that cross state lines, I want to issue a word of caution here. The law isn't really clear on this one. You are in Michigan, and you call into our conference lines (which are in Georgia), and are joined by people around the United States for a call. Some court cases have suggested that because the call crosses state lines these become federal jurisdiction and the one-party consent statute would apply. The best rule of thumb is to treat any conferences that involve parties from multiple states as “all-party” consent.

So where does the Federal Communications Commission come in? FCC rules state that you can gain consent in a few different ways: gain verbal consent from the parties involved, play a "beep" at various intervals, or announce that the call is being recorded at the beginning. If you've ever had an operator assisted call with us, you know that we always announce that calls are being recorded and it's to ensure that both your call and our company adhere to FCC regulations.

There are limited exceptions to state consent laws – like on conferences with investors, recording is mandatory. When legal warrants are in play for wiretapping, no one has to be notified that calls are being recorded by law enforcement.

While it’s always a great idea to record your conferences, we want to make sure you understand that there are varying laws out there on when you have to disclose. If you need to turn on recording announcements, you can do that through your customer account or give us a call and let us walk you through that.

Disclaimer:This blog post is not meant to give legal advice, but rather to inform you of the different laws that exist in regards to recording consent.

Uber Car Service Controversy

"Make easy money just by driving with Uber!" That was a Facebook post I saw that was made by one of my friends. Of course, it grabbed my attention. How could you make money by driving? More importantly, who is Uber? My curiosity started kicking in, and I decided to do my research. According to their website, Uber is a service created in 2009 that connects its users to its drivers through a mobile app. Basically, Uber contracts a set of licensed drivers. An Uber user can request taxi-like services by pulling the app up on their phone and contacting an Uber driver that's closest to them. The user can then rate the driver based on their experience, and they pay the driver by linking their credit card information to their account so their fare is automatically deducted. Drivers for Uber can create their own schedule, though the site suggests being available during peak hours to make more money. I assume "peak hours" are when bars are closing or after a concert or sporting event.

The service itself seems pretty innovative. For the driver, they have the freedom to set their own hours and don't have to deal with cash. For the user, they are able to hand-pick their drivers that are close to them and/or are highly rated. You can't quite do that by calling a traditional taxi service.

Although it has gained popularity with the public, many city officials are not too happy with the tech company. In Los Angeles, Uber received a cease-and-desist letter this last June telling the company that they are "operating an unlicensed, for-profit commercial transportation service..." Uber has also had to deal with battles in Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Washington D.C., and most recently Dallas. The City of Dallas initiated an investigation that ended up with 61 citations being issued to 31 Uber drivers as of August 28, 2013.

Since Uber came to Dallas in 2012, members of the City Council have tried to regulate its transportation-for-hire services. More recently, city staff members had placed an unscheduled item into the Dallas City Council meeting agenda. When agenda items are scheduled, a committee will study the issue and get the public’s input before it would ever reach City Council. However, a memo  was placed into the August 28, 2013 agenda to propose changes to the current Chapter 10A of the Dallas City Code bypassing the usual procedure.

Along with city officials, taxi and transportation companies are not too fond of the service either. A representative from LADOT (Los Angeles Department of Transportation) said that these drivers for Uber "...are not required to pass background checks or have their vehicles inspected for safety." Arthur Hollingsworth, an investor for Yellow Cab also argues that "Uber drivers don't have to pay the same taxes, insurance fees and licensing fees that taxi drivers do." Both are pretty good points if the primary concern about the whole issue is fairness and public safety.

It seems that after the August 28th City Council meeting, the issue has simmered down a little in Dallas. The Dallas Morning News reported on October 23, 2013 that the 61 citations have all been dropped and the City of Dallas is backing off Uber as the interim Dallas city manager, A.C. Gonzales, has been getting a lot of heat for not handling the issue appropriately. So, the question still begs to be answered. Should Uber be treated like a taxi company and pay the same fees or follow the same regulations that taxi drivers are subjected to? Or are they merely a middleman for the for-hire transportation driver and the Uber user?

David Byrd thinks, "Uber is a new service that wasn't possible before cell phones. Now, you are getting customers from a market that didn't exist. So, is it really competition to taxi services?  I don't think so since I would be willing to use Uber when I wouldn't consider a taxi. I don't see Uber eating into taxi business for people at the airport, or at hotels. So, I don't think they should be restricted by the same rules."

I think as long as the Uber drivers have the necessary background checks done (they don’t have any warrants, are not reckless drivers, and are properly insured) then they should be allowed to offer their services. The transportation market is changing as it should with technology. I think it’s great that Uber users are able to see their driver’s ratings and can hail them quicker than they can get a cab. It’s just a different way of doing business.