On plaintiff’s first appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment for defendant.  On remand, the case was tried to a judge who ruled in defendant’s favor and plaintiff again appealed.  Plaintiff claimed that HSBC violated Penal Code 632 and 632.7 by intentionally recording her confidential personal calls to and from her daughter who, at the time, was working in HSBC’s call center.  This opinion finds there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that HSBC did not intentionally record the calls.  Though HSBC had a policy forbidding call center employees from making personal calls on company equipment, it didn’t enforce the poliscy strictly, and its call center managers knew that employees frequently violated the policy.  Since HSBC recorded all calls, it was aware it was recording some personal calls.  However, there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that plaintiff impliedly consented to the recording of her calls.  She agreed to the HSBC credit card terms which said she consented to recording of calls and she made monthly calls to pay her credit card bill, hearing a recorded warning about recording calls each time.  It was not necessary for a similar warning to be given on all the rest of the calls for plaintiff to know that calls to the call center were recorded.