Government and public statistics
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 95
Supreme Court of California, Supreme Court of California, 2006
Read the originalRead on October 17, 2026
- What it is
- The California Supreme Court's decision on whether California's recording law applies to calls a Georgia-based firm made to California clients. It held that California law governs future recordings of such calls.
- How much weight it carries
- Full text of the court's opinion, as published by Stanford's Supreme Court of California archive. It is a binding decision on California law. It does not settle the rule in other states.
Facts taken from this source
- In Kearney, the California Supreme Court said that if a business tells a caller at the start of a telephone call that it is being recorded, the recording would not violate California's statute.
“if a business informs a client or customer at the outset of a telephone call that the call is being recorded, the recording would not violate the applicable California statute” (Opinion, Part IV)
- In Kearney, the California Supreme Court concluded that the comparative impairment analysis supported applying California law to the calls.
“we conclude that the comparative impairment analysis supports the application of California law in this context” (Opinion, Part IV)
- In 2006, the California Supreme Court found a true conflict between California and Georgia law over recordings of calls with California clients.
“we conclude that this case presents a true conflict between California and Georgia law” (Opinion, Part IV)