Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

We are Working in a Virtual, Video-Conferencing World – But What About Wiretapping?

Client Alert
July 30, 2020

Businesses and other organizations often have a need or desire to record telephone conversations related to their business interests and customer dealings; however, this practice is not always permissible as federal and state laws vary on this issue. Knowing and understanding your jurisdiction’s rules and regulations on this practice is essential to remaining in compliance with the law. 

Under the federal Wiretap Act, phone conversations typically may be recorded as long as one party to the conversation consents. Exceptions to this general rule exist, however, including when the consenting party intends to use the recording for criminal or tortious purposes. 

With that said, a state law that varies with the federal by requiring a more stringent two-party consent standard will supersede federal law. Moreover, state laws which do follow the federal one-party standard, but address and outline allow different or additional exceptions to the standard will rule in that regard as well. 

It should further be noted that these laws extend to virtual meetings as well, including those conducted through video-conferencing technologies such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc. — even if the purpose of the meeting is for educational and/or training programs. As popularity in the use of these platforms is on the rise, businesses should be mindful of the civil and/or criminal liabilities associated with the use of these technologies, particularly when seeking to record sessions.

So, what should you do if you believe that you’ve been recorded? Can you ask if you’re being recorded, and does the person answering have to be honest in their response? Unsurprisingly, the answers to these questions vary by jurisdiction as well depending on how strict of a standard your state follows. A one-party consent state has different and more lenient requirements than a two-party consent state. 

Penalties for failing to follow any of the above-mentioned federal and/or state wiretapping laws are serious, so ensuring notice and consent before recording as required can mean the difference between compliance and potential fines as well as prison time. 

Knowing and understanding the implications and permissibility of recording phone and/or video conferencing conversations is increasingly important in light of ongoing stay-at-home orders leading to the growing use of these technologies. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your specific jurisdiction’s law on these issues, please contact Amanda L. Waesch, Esq. at alwaesch@bmdllc.com.

virtual businessremote workingcriminal liabilitytelephone recordingwiretap act
Client Alert

Telehealth Flexibility Updates: HIPAA, DEA, and CMS

May 12, 2023The Covid-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) officially ended on May 11, 2023. But what does that mean for telehealth, a field that expanded exponentially during the PHE? Fortunately, many of the flexibilities will remain intact, at least temporarily. This client alert presents a brief overview of the timelines that providers need to follow, but for a more comprehensive review of telehealth flexibilities and when they will endClient Alert, Multimedia

WEBINAR SERIES RECAP | Ending the Public Health Emergency + Post-Pandemic Check-Up

May 10, 2023Some may take the position that the rest of the country already returned to a new “normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.  But healthcare providers continue to implement COVID protocols and navigate the ever-changing healthcare regulations at both the federal and state levels.  It is important for healthcare providers to take time for a “Healthcare Check-Up” with the start of 2023 and the ending of the Public Health Emergency (“PHE”).Client Alert

Sharp Rise in False Claims Act Cases - Navigating the FCA Waters

May 5, 2023Recently, on April 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the FCA’s scienter, or mental state, requirement. To prove violation of the FCA, the statute requires that a defendant “knowingly” file false claims for payment. The term “knowingly” is defined within the statute to mean a person that acts with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. Circuit courts are split on how to interpret and apply the knowledge element of the FCA, and based on the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be a large impact on healthcare defendants and their businesses as well as anyone who contracts with, or receives money from, a federal program. A broader interpretation of the FCA would unnecessarily target and stifle healthcare, and other businesses, for simple errors in daily operations. This goes against the intended application of the FCA, which was to prevent fraudulent activity.Client Alert

Areas of Opportunity in Columbus: Highlights from the Columbus Opportunity Summit

May 5, 2023On April 27, 2023 Columbus Business First held its annual Columbus Opportunity Summit, bringing together business and economic development leaders to provide an update on how Central Ohio is preparing for expected growth in the coming years, an issue heightened by the arrival of Intel at its 1,000 acre site in Licking County, just outside of Columbus. The site will be home to two new chip factories with room to grow to a total of eight factories and is a $20 Billion investment.Client Alert

BREAKING: Biden Administration Has Officially Ended the Two Remaining COVID Vaccine Mandates

May 2, 2023As of May 1, 2023, the Biden Administration has officially ended the two remaining COVID vaccine mandates: (1) the Federal Contractor Mandate, and (2) the CMS Healthcare Provider Vaccine Mandate.
Older posts