|
4285 In an action against a Georgia company arising from its recording of telephone conversations with persons in California without their consent, California law, which prohibits such recordings without the consent of all parties involved, should be applied, rather than Georgia law, which permits such recordings on the consent of any party to the conversation; since it would be unfair to impose liability for damages on the Georgia company for past conduct that was permitted by Georgia law, no damages should be awarded in this case, but an injunction may issue, and damages will be available for future such violations of California law.CitationKEARNEY v SALOMON SMITH BARNEY (Recorded Calls) 39 C4 95 [See: PenC 632, 637; Flanagan v Flanagan 27 C4 766, T/AT 4/02; Kearney v Salomon Smith (RevGrtd) 117 CA4 446, T/AT 5/04]
|
|
