In Fishman v. Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., 2018 WL 1242076, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Alsup allowed a call-recording class action to proceed.
Tiger argues that plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the sales calls — namely that (1) the parties discussed plaintiffs’ PG&E account information, (2) the calls were not made in a public setting, and (3) many other telemarketers disclose that calls are recorded — are insufficient to allege an objectively reasonable expectation of confidentiality. But unlike the facts presented in Tiger’s authorities, here, the plaintiffs sufficiently allege personalized calls which involved the disclosure of personal information. . . Here, plaintiffs allege that defendants initiated a personalized call in which they were invited to discuss their PG&E accounts, including confirmation of their home addresses, account numbers, and rate schedule. This case more closely resembles Membrila and Kearney v. Saloman Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95, 118 n.10 (2016), where the California Supreme Court recognized that callers to financial advisors had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversations in light of the “strong privacy interest most persons have with regard to the personal financial information frequently disclosed in such calls.” Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, this order finds that plaintiffs had an objectively reasonable expectation that their calls with defendants would not be overheard or recorded. Tiger’s motion to dismiss this claim is DENIED.