First - when I called to ask about filling a prescription for an TENS unit I VERY CLEARLY asked if I would have any additional charges other than what my insurance company covers. they said no - and assured me it was covered.
3 months later they billed me hundreds of dollars. I called to ask why, after being promised this wouldn't happen (I'd read their terrible reviews), and they argued over and over for hours and multiple transfers until finally they offered to "check the recordings".
weird I thought, since they never asked nor told me they were recording me. So I asked a lawyer.... it's illegal. They said they'd release the calls to me too and never did either. Finally, their VP (Raelynn Maloney) offered to call me back with their head of compliance and then haven't and ignored my calls.
They record every call (admitted this to me), despite the following CA Supreme Court ruling which has been uphold numerous times.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, George, C.J., held that:
1 institution was subject to jurisdiction of California courts;
2 applying California privacy law did not violate due process;
3 applying California privacy law did not violate commerce clause;
4 California statute prohibiting recording of telephone conversation without consent of all parties applied to conversation in which only one party was in California;
5 Georgia statutes prohibiting recording of telephone conversation without consent of one party applied to conversation in which only one party was in Georgia;
6 California law applied to determine whether recording of conversations constituted unlawful invasion of privacy; and
7 clients could not recover damages or restitution.
In light of our decision, of course, out-of-state companies that do business in California now are on notice that, with regard to future conduct, they are subject to California law *131 with regard to the recording of telephone conversations made to or received from California, and that the full **939 range of civil sanctions afforded by California law may be imposed for future violations.18
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914, 938-39 (Cal. 2006)
Zynex Medical Reviews
First - when I called to ask about filling a prescription for an TENS unit I VERY CLEARLY asked if I would have any additional charges other than what my insurance company covers. they said no - and assured me it was covered.
3 months later they billed me hundreds of dollars. I called to ask why, after being promised this wouldn't happen (I'd read their terrible reviews), and they argued over and over for hours and multiple transfers until finally they offered to "check the recordings".
weird I thought, since they never asked nor told me they were recording me. So I asked a lawyer.... it's illegal. They said they'd release the calls to me too and never did either. Finally, their VP (Raelynn Maloney) offered to call me back with their head of compliance and then haven't and ignored my calls.
They record every call (admitted this to me), despite the following CA Supreme Court ruling which has been uphold numerous times.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, George, C.J., held that:
1 institution was subject to jurisdiction of California courts;
2 applying California privacy law did not violate due process;
3 applying California privacy law did not violate commerce clause;
4 California statute prohibiting recording of telephone conversation without consent of all parties applied to conversation in which only one party was in California;
5 Georgia statutes prohibiting recording of telephone conversation without consent of one party applied to conversation in which only one party was in Georgia;
6 California law applied to determine whether recording of conversations constituted unlawful invasion of privacy; and
7 clients could not recover damages or restitution.
In light of our decision, of course, out-of-state companies that do business in California now are on notice that, with regard to future conduct, they are subject to California law *131 with regard to the recording of telephone conversations made to or received from California, and that the full **939 range of civil sanctions afforded by California law may be imposed for future violations.18
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 137 P.3d 914, 938-39 (Cal. 2006)