Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

If the recorded speech is taking place in a two-party consent state — including CA, where many Clubhouse members are located — the person recording can be prosecuted regardless of where they're physically located. The critical issue is whether or not CH convos are "confidential"

Just because the California supreme court creates a law does not mean it has jurisdiction over the case. When a business does business in multiple states it registers an entity in the state which means it can be sued locally even the recording happened in a one party state but

if it's just an individual in a different state California can't just assume jurisdiction.

This question was the entire basis of the SC case, and the ruling determined "that the complaint was properly governed by California law" and could be prosecuted in CA despite the recording party calling from Georgia.

"The California decision confirms that states with restrictive eavesdropping laws will not hesitate to enforce those laws against interstate callers."

I get it, I'm just saying that I highly doubt this law applies to individuals. As I said I agree that it can apply to companies because they usually have a local entity that you can legally serve.