⚠ Penalty Exposure — California
Per Violation
$5,000
Willful
$10,000
AG Max/Violation
$2,500
10,000 Calls
$50,000,000
= exposure
Overview
California layers multiple overlapping telecom statutes into one of the most complex compliance environments in the country. Two-party consent under CIPA (Penal Code § 632) means recording any call without all-party consent is a criminal offense with $5,000-per-violation civil damages. The Automatic Dialing-Announcing Device (ADAD) rules (Pub. Util. Code §§ 2871-2876) restrict robocalls with CPUC oversight. Telephonic seller registration (B&P Code §§ 17511-17513) requires a $100,000 surety bond and AG registration before making calls. AB 2905 (effective Jan 1, 2025) requires AI voice disclosure at call start. The CCPA/CPRA adds a data privacy layer giving consumers the right to opt out of personal information sales — including lead lists. The AG runs an active robocall task force and coordinates multistate enforcement. Class actions under CIPA routinely produce eight-figure settlements.
Consent Requirements by Channel
| Channel | Consent Required | One-to-One |
|---|---|---|
| Voice Call | Prior Express | Required |
| SMS | Written Consent Required | Required |
| AI Voice | Written Consent Required | Required |
| Prerecorded | Prior Express | Required |
| Ringless VM | Written Consent Required | Required |
| MMS | Written Consent Required | Required |
| Fax | Prior Express | — |
Key Court Decisions
Berman v. Realogy Brokerage Group LLC (Anywhere Real Estate)
8/10U.S. District Court · Mar 2024
Class action settlement of $20 million resolving TCPA claims that Realogy (now Anywhere Real Estate) placed automated telemarketing calls and texts without prior express written consent. The case involved lead generation practices where consent was obtained through third-party lead generators using bundled consent forms — a practice that predates and is now prohibited by the FCC's January 2025 one-to-one consent rule.
Citibank TCPA Class Action Settlement
8/10U.S. District Court · Jan 2024
Class action settlement of $29.5 million resolving claims that Citibank violated the TCPA by placing prerecorded calls to noncustomers' cell phones without prior express consent between 2014 and 2024. The calls were placed using automated equipment to phone numbers that had been reassigned from former Citibank customers to new subscribers who had no relationship with the bank.
Sat Narayan d/b/a Express Hauling et al. v. Fifth Third Bank et al.
9/10California Superior Court · Jan 2022
Class action settlement of approximately $50 million for CIPA violations related to unauthorized recording of telemarketing calls. The financial institution and its vendor recorded outbound telemarketing calls to California consumers without obtaining all-party consent as required by Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7. At the time, it was the largest CIPA settlement in history — nearly three times the size of any previous CIPA settlement.
Recent Enforcement Actions
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Credit Wholesale Co., Inc.; Priority Commerce Corp.
$19,500,000Jan 2025 · financial services
Call recording without two-party consent in California is an existential business risk. Wells Fargo — one of the largest banks in the world — paid $19.5 million because a vendor recorded calls without proper consent. If your telemarketing operation records calls to CA consumers (quality assurance, compliance monitoring, AI analysis), you need explicit all-party consent at the start of every call. "This call may be recorded" is not enough — the caller must affirmatively consent.
Allstate Insurance Company
$3,300,000Jun 2024 · insurance
Insurance companies are high-priority CIPA targets. Allstate's claims department recorded calls without consent — a routine practice for many insurers. The $3.3 million settlement covers just 10 months of calls from one department. Scale that across an entire insurance operation making thousands of calls per day and the exposure is staggering. Every call to a California cell phone that gets recorded needs consent.
Nine VoIP service providers (Operation Robocall Roundup Phase 1)
Apr 2024 · home services
California AG is pursuing the supply chain of illegal robocalls. The Robocall Task Force strategy: go after the voice service providers that carry the traffic, not just the companies making the calls. If you are a VoIP provider, gateway carrier, or intermediate provider routing calls into California, you are on notice. The AG expects affirmative steps to identify and block illegal robocall traffic. Failure to act after a warning letter = enforcement action.
Key Rules
Operating in California?
Get a compliance review from Catalyst Partners. We will tell you exactly what you need to do — and what you need to stop doing.
Book a Compliance Call →Stay Current
Weekly digest: what changed this week
New enforcement actions, statute updates, and rule changes in California — delivered once a week.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Powered by Brevo.
Compliance Review
Not sure if you're compliant in California?
Get a 30-minute compliance review with Catalyst Partners — we'll map your outreach program against Californialaw and tell you exactly where you're exposed. No generic advice. No billing by the hour after. Just the facts and a clear action list.
Book Free Consultation →Catalyst Partners · Palm Harbor, FL · +1 (727) 777-3204
This is a compliance reference tool, not legal advice. Data compiled from public statutes, LegiScan, CourtListener, state AG offices, and AI-assisted analysis. Verify all information with qualified counsel before relying on it. Full terms & data sources →