BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 925
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
925 (Low) - As Amended May 11, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill exempts the first 20 seconds of a telephonic
communication between a person or business and a current or
former customer from any illegal non-consensual recording
AB 925
Page 2
prohibitions. Also requires the Department of Justice (DOJ), by
January 1, 2017, to report to the Legislature the number of
people charged with violating this section of law during the
preceding year.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Moderate costs to DOJ in excess to $150,000 (GF) to capture this
civil action from 58 different counties; the required
information is not currently reported by local law enforcement
agencies.
Potential reimbursable state mandated cost (GF) on county
district attorneys to report the number of people charged with
violating the law in a format yet to be developed by DOJ. If
the cost of submitting the information by a county exceeds
$10,000 in the largest 15 counties, this mandated cost will
exceed $150,000.
COMMENTS:
Purpose According to the author, "The legislature initially
enacted [the California Invasion of Privacy Act] CIPA in 1967
and amongst its provisions, made it illegal to intentionally
intercept or record confidential communications by means of a
telegraph, telephone or other device under Penal Code 632. With
the advent and proliferation of cellular and cordless
telephones, the legislature updated CIPA by enacting Penal Code
632.7 which applies to mobile phones. Specifically, it ensured
that communications conducted with a cellular device are not
intentionally recorded without consent of the parties. But
unlike Penal Code 632, this section does not distinguish between
confidential and non-confidential calls. As such, courts have
been compelled by the plain language of Penal Code 632.7 to
require consent prior to recording any portion of all calls made
AB 925
Page 3
to persons on a mobile phone, regardless of whether confidential
information is discussed."
"Unfortunately, this has led to illogical outcomes where calls
to customers are legal if they are on a land line but not if
they're on a mobile phone. We have recently seen a number of
examples of lawsuits filed based on entirely routine and benign
conduct. For example, one class action alleged a violation of
632.7 based on the recording of a conversation where the
answering party stated that the caller had dialed the wrong
number and the call ends before any recording disclosure is
given. Although the conversation lasted only a few seconds and
contained no confidential or private information, plaintiffs
sought extensive damages under Section 632.7.
"AB 925 seeks to harmonize Penal Code 632 and 632.7 by creating
a very narrow exception for these non-confidential calls. It
only intends to capture the brief non-confidential communication
between a business and a customer prior to providing the
recording disclosure. Practically, this would include an
introductory conversation to identify the parties and purpose of
the call."
"This bill will not remove the CIPA requirement to obtain the
consent of a party prior to recording a confidential
communication. AB 925's limited language cleans up the
arbitrary distinction between land lines and mobile phones for a
very distinct type of call."
The committee may wish to delay date of the report to July 1,
2017 to allow ample time for local agencies to submit the
necessary information to DOJ.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 925
Page 4