A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Protecting your telephone privacy rights: Compensation for illegal call recordings

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
We’ve all been on calls with telemarketers, banks, collection companies and other businesses when we hear the standard line: “This call is being recorded for business purposes.” Call recordings have become so standard that we often don’t even notice this warning. But what if your voice gets recorded without your consent? What if the caller fails to inform you that you’re being recorded – or only tells you after the conversation has already begun? This situation is more common than you might think. And if it has happened to you, you could be entitled to compensation. Your rights matter Illegal call recordings are more than just a minor oversight. They infringe on your basic privacy rights. They capture not only your voice but also, potentially, personal or confidential information. They’re an affront to your dignity. Fortunately, California law takes a strong stance against violators. Our firm recently published a FREE white paper addressing this important topic. Entitled “Privacy On The Line: Illegal Call Recordings And California’s Invasion Of Privacy Act,” it covers:
  • Your right to not be recorded without your consent
  • What types of businesses are most likely to violate your rights
  • How to know if you’ve been a victim of illegal call recordings
  • How to hold violators accountable and pursue compensation
We invite you to download the paper and share it with others. You can also contact our firm directly if you have any questions.

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.