Fact · Voice privacy and security
In Kearney, the California Supreme Court concluded that the comparative impairment analysis supported applying California law to the calls.
Checked against its source on October 17, 2026
In the source's own words
“we conclude that the comparative impairment analysis supports the application of California law in this context”
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 95, Supreme Court of California, Supreme Court of California, 2006, Opinion, Part IV.
Open the original- What it measures
- The court compared how much each state would lose if its law were not applied. California law covered calls placed into California to California clients.
- What it does not show
- The conclusion was reached on the facts of the case and applies to recordings of calls into California. It does not set a general rule for every pair of states.