I live in a two party consent state for recording phone calls. When I call some type of customer service, typically the automated response will start with a message that takes the form of, ‘this call may be recorded…’ I generously interpret that to mean they are granting me permission to record them. Is that how you interpret it?
That should be how it is, but I suspect it isn’t. Just tell the nice CSR that you might be recording her, and see what she says.
The principle is probably “if you don’t hang up, you consent”. So they may hang up on you.
I live in a state where only one party need consent. That is fortunate, because they already said it was OK with them if the call is recorded.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, in one party states, you are the consenting party.
I don’t care about such disclaimers when I am dealing with people I have an established relationship with, but the telemarketers that call and tell me that they are recording do anger me.
I usually say, “Good, then you have it on record that I wish to have no further contact with your company.”
Former CSR. Our response was usually “We do not consent to you recording us.”
Did you honor requests from callers that you not record them either?
Yes.
But I am just doing it so as to get better at dealing with customer service!
As mentioned, in my state it doesn’t matter and I don’t even need to warn you - if I want to record you, I can. And if the service desk is in another state that requires consent of both parties, it still won’t matter - you said right at the start of the call that you were OK with the call being recorded, and it’s OK with me too.
Regards,
Shodan
No, I don’t interpret it that way. I think the more likely interpretation is that they are telling you that they might (and probably will) record the conversation. When I worked
in a call center, we did have the ability to turn off the recording device on a particular call. It was rarely requested, but available.
It really depends. I used to work on the phones for a major brokerage firm. Every single call to a broker was recorded and that was included in the terms and conditions of opening an account. Some of them were used for ‘quality assurance’, which were one hour hell sessions when you had to sit with some idiot QA specialist who’d nit pick you to death. But, the most important reason was to help settle trade disputes.
And what is your response to the customer not consenting to being recorded?
Did you ask their permission to record the conversation, or did you just say you were doing it?
One time they asked me if I would consent to being recorded, and I said I don’t think I want to do that this time, and then I had to jump through all kinds of different hoops and call a different number and wait for another customer service person to finish what I was trying to do. I should have just left them record me.
I don’t ask. I just record because they said the call may be recorded. I figure I have a leg to stand on if it comes to that.
Well, they don’t say recorded by whom, do they? 
We end the call. We didn’t have the ability to just turn it off. By calling us and hearing the message and continuing with the call, you are consenting.
Me too. I never thought of interpreting it the other way.
I work in a call center and our policy if a caller says they’re also recording the call is to advise them that’s OK and proceed with the call. Out CSRs don’t have to advise of the call recording on inbound calls because the IVR already does that.
We would advise the caller that we’re unable to stop recording (federal law requires we record all calls) and they would need to disconnect from the call if they don’t want to be recorded. We can also offer our mailing address if they prefer to write a letter instead of talking on the phone.
That’s my logic as well: they already know they are being recorded or may be recorded by their end: they have already given permission to record. My remaining on the line signals my permission. There is no distinction in Nevada law that the party recording must be one or the other party in order for the permission to be valid: permission is permission.
If a contract is worded ambiguously it is supposed to be interpreted favorably towards the party who didn’t write it. I’d think the proper legal interpretation of “This call may be recorded …” is a granting or permission. If they said “This call might be recorded …” you’d be on less firm grounds. I know that’s nitpicking, but that’s what lawyers get paid to do.
IANAL
This demonstrates the difference between “may” and “might”. They should have used the phrase “this call might be recorded…” if they didn’t want you recording them. Because as it stands, they’ve granted you permission.