Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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.

When you have two regular people suing each other, and they are in different states, the jurisdiction usually settles where the recording happened.

This was a criminal rather than civil case & the question was whether the state of California could enforce its two-party consent law with regard to a call originating from + recorded in Georgia. The ruling determined that yes, California can prosecute under those circumstances.

Whether a civil suit could be approached in a similar way, I don't know