California
California Surveillance Camera Laws: Complete 2026 Guide
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
California allows video-only surveillance cameras on your own property and in public-facing areas, but audio recording requires all-party consent under Penal Code 632. Cameras must never record spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and hidden cameras in those areas violate Penal Code 647(j).
What California Law Says About Surveillance Cameras
California takes a layered approach to regulating surveillance cameras. No single statute covers every situation. Instead, several state laws work together to balance the right to protect your property against the right to privacy.
The primary laws that govern surveillance cameras in California include Penal Code 632 (audio recording and eavesdropping), Penal Code 647(j) (hidden cameras and voyeurism), Labor Code 435 (workplace surveillance), and Civil Code 1708.8 (physical invasion of privacy, including drones).
The fundamental principle across all these laws is straightforward: you can record video in places where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording carries much stricter rules.
Home Security Cameras in California
Legal Requirements for Residential Surveillance
California homeowners have broad rights to install security cameras on their own property. You can place cameras at entrances, in driveways, along walkways, in garages, and in living areas of your home without violating state law.
However, even in your own home, cameras cannot be placed in areas where anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. That means bathrooms, guest bedrooms where someone is sleeping, and changing areas are always off-limits for surveillance.
If your security cameras capture audio, California law requires you to get consent from anyone whose conversations are being recorded. Under Penal Code 632, California is an all-party consent state. Recording a confidential communication without every participant's consent is a criminal offense.
Outdoor Camera Placement Rules
Outdoor security cameras on your property are legal as long as they are pointed at areas you own or at public spaces like streets and sidewalks. California law does not require you to post signage for residential security cameras, but visible notices can help establish that visitors have been informed about recording.
Problems arise when outdoor cameras are angled to capture the interior of a neighbor's home, their backyard, or other areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A camera that incidentally captures a small portion of a neighbor's property while monitoring your own driveway is generally acceptable, but a camera specifically aimed at a neighbor's windows is not.
Audio Recording and All-Party Consent (Penal Code 632)
The All-Party Consent Rule
California's eavesdropping law is one of the strictest in the country. Penal Code 632 makes it illegal to use any electronic device to record or eavesdrop on a confidential communication without the consent of all parties involved.
This law directly affects surveillance cameras equipped with microphones. If your Ring doorbell, Nest camera, or any other security device records audio, you must inform everyone whose conversations it captures and obtain their consent.
A "confidential communication" under the statute means any conversation carried on under circumstances that reasonably indicate the parties intend it to be private. Conversations in public places where others can overhear them are generally not considered confidential.
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
First-time violations of Penal Code 632 carry a fine of up to $2,500 and up to one year in county jail, or a state prison sentence. For repeat offenders with a prior conviction under PC 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the fine increases to $10,000.
Beyond criminal penalties, Penal Code 637.2 provides a powerful civil remedy. Anyone whose privacy was violated can sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times their actual damages. Notably, the plaintiff does not need to prove they suffered financial harm to recover the $5,000 statutory minimum.
Evidence obtained through an illegal recording is generally inadmissible, but the rule is narrower than it is often described. Penal Code 632(d) provides that, "except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section," evidence obtained by eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of the section "is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding."
Two carve-outs matter in practice. First, the recording is admissible as proof in a case prosecuting the Penal Code 632 violation itself, so it can be used against the person who made it. Second, Penal Code 633.5 provides that Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render evidence obtained under its recording exception inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person (including human trafficking under Section 236.1), a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, or any crime in connection with those offenses.
Exceptions to the Consent Requirement
Penal Code 633.5 creates a limited exception. One party to a conversation may record without the other's consent when gathering evidence of certain serious crimes, including extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence, human trafficking, harassment under PC 653m, and domestic violence. The statute's second sentence is just as important and is often left out: Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for those same offenses, or for any crime in connection with them. Someone who records under this exception can use the recording in such a prosecution.
Penal Code 632.7 extends the same protections specifically to cellular and cordless telephone communications, with matching penalties.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism (Penal Code 647(j))
What the Law Prohibits
Penal Code 647(j) targets the use of hidden cameras in situations that invade someone's privacy. The statute covers several distinct offenses.
Peeping (PC 647(j)(1)) makes it illegal to look through a hole, opening, or use any device to view the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Secret Recording of Intimate Areas (PC 647(j)(2)) prohibits using a concealed camera to secretly record under or through a person's clothing to view their body or undergarments, without consent and with intent to arouse sexual desire.
Recording in Private Spaces (PC 647(j)(3)) makes it a crime to secretly record someone who is fully or partially undressed in any room where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The law specifically states that being a landlord, employer, cohabitant, or tenant is not a defense.
Non-Consensual Distribution (PC 647(j)(4)) addresses the distribution of intimate images without consent, including digitally altered or deepfake images, when the distribution causes serious emotional distress.
Penalties for Hidden Camera Offenses
A first violation of PC 647(j) is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. If the victim was under 18 years old, or if the defendant has a prior conviction, the penalties increase to up to one year in jail and fines up to $2,000.
A second or subsequent violation of PC 647(j) generally remains a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000. The offense becomes a "wobbler," chargeable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, only in the narrower case of a second or subsequent violation of the undressed-recording provision (PC 647(j)(3)) where the victim was a minor, which can be punished by imprisonment under Penal Code Section 1170(h) in addition to the same $2,000 fine cap. The statute does not authorize a $10,000 fine for this offense.
Workplace Surveillance (Labor Code 435)
Employer Camera Restrictions
California Labor Code 435 places clear limits on where employers can install surveillance cameras. No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by the employer for changing clothes, unless authorized by a court order.
This prohibition applies to both private and public employers in California (excluding federal government entities). Any recording made in violation of Labor Code 435 cannot be used by the employer for any purpose, including disciplinary proceedings.
A violation is classified as an infraction under California law, which is the least serious category of criminal offense.
Electronic Monitoring Notice Requirements
California's current law under Labor Code 435 does not include a general advance-notice requirement for electronic monitoring; the statute is limited to banning audio or video recording of employees in restrooms, locker rooms, and rooms designated for changing clothes, as described above. A broader requirement that employers notify employees before electronic monitoring is not yet law; it is part of pending legislation, AB-1331, described below.
Pending Legislation (2025-2026 Session)
The California Legislature is considering several new workplace surveillance bills during the 2025-2026 session. AB-1331 would further restrict the use of workplace surveillance tools, including prohibiting monitoring in employee-only designated areas and requiring employers to give workers the right to leave behind surveillance devices when entering breakrooms, cafeterias, and similar spaces. SB-238 proposes additional restrictions on workplace surveillance tools.
Nanny Cams in California
When Nanny Cams Are Legal
Video-only nanny cams are legal in California. You can place hidden cameras in common areas of your home, such as the living room, kitchen, playroom, or hallways, to monitor a caregiver without informing them.
The legality changes when audio is involved. Because California is an all-party consent state, a nanny cam that records sound violates Penal Code 632 unless you have informed the caregiver and obtained their consent. If you use a nanny cam with audio, you should disclose this in writing and have the caregiver sign an acknowledgment.
Where Nanny Cams Cannot Be Placed
Even in your own home, you cannot place cameras in areas where a caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you have a live-in nanny, you cannot place a camera in the room where they sleep. Bathrooms are always off-limits regardless of whether the camera is for security or childcare purposes.
Admissibility of Nanny Cam Footage
This is a critical consideration. The suppression rule comes from Penal Code 632(d), not the Evidence Code: except as proof in an action or prosecution for violating Section 632 itself, evidence obtained by recording a confidential communication in violation of that section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding. If your nanny cam captured audio without consent, that footage may be ruled inadmissible in criminal or civil proceedings, even if it documented abuse or neglect. The Penal Code 633.5 exception preserves admissibility only for a recording made by a party to the conversation in order to gather evidence of the serious crimes that section lists, so it will not usually cover a camera left running in a room the homeowner is not in. To ensure your footage can be used as evidence, keep cameras video-only or obtain written consent for audio recording.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Cameras
Legal Status of Doorbell Cameras
Ring doorbells and similar smart cameras are generally legal in California. The area immediately outside your front door is not considered a place where visitors have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You are permitted to record video of anyone who approaches your door.
However, two issues frequently arise with doorbell cameras in California.
Audio recording is the primary concern. Most Ring and Nest doorbell cameras record audio by default. Under Penal Code 632, recording private conversations between visitors at your door without their knowledge could violate the all-party consent requirement. Conversations on a front porch may or may not be considered "confidential communications" depending on the circumstances.
Neighbor privacy is the second common issue. If your doorbell camera captures views into a neighbor's windows, private yard, or other areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they may have grounds for a complaint. California law does not specifically prohibit doorbell cameras from capturing incidental views of neighboring property, but deliberately aiming a camera at a neighbor's private spaces could lead to civil liability under invasion of privacy claims.
Reducing Legal Risk with Smart Cameras
To minimize legal exposure, consider disabling audio recording on outdoor cameras or posting visible signage indicating that audio and video recording is in progress. Some California municipalities recommend bilingual signage (English and Spanish) stating "Audio/Video Surveillance in Progress."
Adjusting camera angles to focus on your property rather than neighboring homes also reduces the risk of privacy disputes.
Drone Surveillance Laws
Civil Code 1708.8 and Airspace Privacy
California Civil Code 1708.8 specifically addresses surveillance conducted via drones and other unmanned aircraft systems. The law establishes civil liability for anyone who knowingly enters the airspace above another person's land without permission to capture images, recordings, or other impressions of someone engaged in a private, personal, or familial activity.
The statute also covers "constructive invasion of privacy," which applies when someone uses technology (including drones with zoom lenses) to capture images that could not have been obtained without trespassing, even if the drone operator never physically entered the airspace above the property.
Penalties for Drone Privacy Violations
Violators of Civil Code 1708.8 face significant civil penalties. Courts can award up to three times the amount of actual damages (treble damages), civil fines between $5,000 and $50,000 per violation, punitive damages, and disgorgement of any profits made from the surveillance (for example, if photos were sold to media outlets).
Compliance with FAA drone regulations does not serve as a defense against a violation of Civil Code 1708.8. A drone operator who follows all federal aviation rules can still be held liable under California's privacy laws.
Law Enforcement Exception
Law enforcement personnel conducting investigations with articulable suspicion are exempt from Civil Code 1708.8 when acting within the course and scope of their employment.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Common Conflict Points
Disputes between neighbors over surveillance cameras are common in California. The most frequent issues involve cameras aimed at a neighbor's property, audio recording that captures conversations in a neighbor's yard, and cameras positioned to view inside a neighbor's home through windows.
Legal Options for Resolving Disputes
If you believe a neighbor's camera is invading your privacy, California law provides several options. You can ask the neighbor to adjust the camera angle, which resolves most disputes without legal action.
If informal discussion fails, you may file a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy. Under Civil Code 1708.8, you can seek damages if the surveillance captures private activities on your property. Under common law invasion of privacy principles, you may also have a claim if the surveillance would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
In extreme cases involving hidden cameras or audio recording without consent, you can file a police report. Violations of Penal Code 632 and 647(j) are criminal offenses.
Local code enforcement may also be helpful, as some California municipalities have ordinances regulating camera placement in residential areas.
CCPA and Surveillance Camera Data
How the California Consumer Privacy Act Applies
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), applies to businesses that collect personal information through surveillance cameras. Video footage that identifies or could identify a California resident qualifies as personal information under the CCPA.
Businesses that operate surveillance cameras must disclose to consumers what personal data they collect and how it is used. Individuals have the right to request access to video footage in which they appear, and businesses must comply while redacting or blurring any third parties visible in the footage.
Biometric Data Protections
The CCPA includes specific protections for biometric information captured by surveillance systems, including facial recognition data, iris scans, and voiceprints. Businesses that use cameras with facial recognition capabilities face additional compliance requirements.
Penalties for CCPA Violations
The California Attorney General can impose penalties of up to $7,500 per intentional violation of the CCPA. Consumers also have a private right of action for data breaches involving their personal information, with statutory damages between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident.
Penalties Summary
California imposes both criminal and civil penalties for illegal surveillance. Here is a breakdown of the key statutes and their consequences.
Penal Code 632 (Illegal Audio Recording): First offense carries up to $2,500 fine and one year in county jail or state prison. Repeat offenders face up to $10,000 fine and one year in county jail or state prison.
Penal Code 647(j) (Hidden Cameras/Voyeurism): First offense is a misdemeanor with up to $1,000 fine and six months in jail. Second offense with a minor victim or prior conviction increases to $2,000 fine and one year in jail. A second or subsequent violation of the undressed-recording provision (PC 647(j)(3)) against a minor victim is a "wobbler" chargeable as a felony, punishable by imprisonment under Penal Code 1170(h) and the same $2,000 fine cap; the statute does not provide for a $10,000 fine.
Labor Code 435 (Workplace Violations): Classified as an infraction.
Civil Code 1708.8 (Drone/Physical Invasion): Treble damages, civil fines of $5,000 to $50,000, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.
Penal Code 637.2 (Civil Remedies for Any Privacy Violation): $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. No proof of financial harm required.
Related California Camera and Privacy Laws
- California Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in California.
- California Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- California Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- California Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in California.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
- HOA Security Camera Rules
- Neighbor Security Camera Laws
- Nanny Cam Laws
- Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
- Landlord Security Camera Laws
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I legally install security cameras outside my home in California?
Yes. California homeowners can install outdoor security cameras on their own property. Cameras may record video of areas you own and public spaces like streets and sidewalks. However, you should not aim cameras at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through their windows or into their fenced backyards. If your cameras record audio, you must comply with California's all-party consent law (Penal Code 632).
Is it illegal to have a hidden camera in your house in California?
Hidden video-only cameras in common areas of your own home (living room, kitchen, hallways) are legal in California. They become illegal when placed in areas where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, bedroom used by a guest or live-in employee, or changing area. Hidden cameras that record audio without all parties' consent violate Penal Code 632 regardless of location.
Does my Ring doorbell violate California wiretapping laws?
A Ring doorbell recording video only is generally legal. However, most Ring doorbells record audio by default, which raises concerns under California's all-party consent law (Penal Code 632). Conversations on a front porch may be considered confidential communications. To reduce legal risk, consider disabling audio recording or posting visible signage informing visitors that audio and video recording is in progress.
Can my employer put cameras in the workplace in California?
Employers can install cameras in common work areas, but California Labor Code 435 strictly prohibits cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, and designated changing rooms. Audio recording in the workplace also requires all-party consent under Penal Code 632. A broader requirement that employers give advance notice before electronic monitoring is not yet law; it is part of pending legislation (AB-1331) that may further restrict workplace surveillance.
What can I do if my neighbor's security camera is pointed at my property in California?
Start by asking your neighbor to adjust the camera angle, which resolves most disputes. If that fails, you may have legal options. If the camera captures audio of your private conversations, it may violate Penal Code 632. If it is aimed to view private areas of your home, you may have a civil claim for invasion of privacy under Civil Code 1708.8 or common law. You can file a police report for criminal violations or consult with a property law or privacy attorney about a civil lawsuit.
Updates
Corrected the source of the evidence-suppression rule to Penal Code 632(d) rather than the Evidence Code, and added the statutory exceptions that keep an unlawful recording admissible, including prosecutions for domestic violence and other serious crimes under Penal Code 633.5.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Narrowed the PC 647(j) felony/wobbler claim to the actual statutory scope (second-or-subsequent violation of the undressed-recording provision against a minor victim only, capped at a $2,000 fine, not the article's fabricated $10,000 figure) and corrected the Labor Code 435 workplace-monitoring section, which presented a pending bill (AB-1331) as current law.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Penal Code
§ 647In forcecited in 21 of our articles
Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and in subdivisions (k) and (l), a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) An individual who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, the individual manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (2) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with another person who is 18 years of age or older in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 593 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In re Giannini (1968) set aside convictions under Penal Code 647(a) because the prosecution introduced no evidence of community standards, and equated "lewd or dissolute" with obscenity only for the purpose of judging an allegedly obscene dance performed for an audience.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Morrison v. State Board of Education (California Supreme Court 1969, 1 Cal. 3d 214)“…public beach and the teacher was arrested for violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), and convicted, on his…”
- People v. Laiwa (California Supreme Court 1983, 34 Cal. 3d 711)“…to arrest him for being under the influence of a narcotic. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) [1] He moved, however, to…”
- In Re Cregler (California Supreme Court 1961, 56 Cal. 2d 308)✓A man previously convicted of theft was arrested for standing in a San Francisco bus station under the pre-1961 vagrancy version of section 647. The court rejected his vagueness challenge, reading loiter to require lingering to commit a crime, and denied habeas relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California SB 1130 Smart Glasses Bill Vetoed by the Governor
§ 632In forcecited in 55 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
§ 637.2In forcecited in 24 of our articles
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: (1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. (2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. (b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a). (c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ribas v. Clark (1985) held the section 637.2 award accrues at the moment of the Privacy Act violation, so the Civil Code section 47 litigation privilege does not bar it, though damages flowing solely from privileged testimony fail. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) applied that reasoning to recordings made in anticipation of litigation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…asion of privacy and related torts as well as damages under Penal Code section 637.2, granting persons injured by eavesdropp…”
- Ribas v. Clark (California Supreme Court 1985, 38 Cal. 3d 355)✓A wife asked a third party to listen on an extension phone while she called her husband, and that listener later testified about it; the court held the judicial privilege barred damages from the testimony but not Section 637.2's fixed award, which accrues at the violation.
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome residents secretly taped calls with park management to gather evidence for a planned lawsuit; the court held the litigation privilege did not bar management's Section 637.2 claim, because the injury came from the recording itself and not from any publication.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Five California Privacy Bills: Four Signed Into Law, One Vetoed, SB 690 Signed Into Law: What the California CIPA Change Does
§ 632.7In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) Every person who, without the consent of all of the parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records, or assists in the interception or reception and intentional recordation of, a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has been convicted previously of a violation of this section or of Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 67 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (California Supreme Court 2021, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 746)“…Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. Under Penal Code section 632.7, subdivision (a) (hereinafter section 6…”
- People v. Chavez (California Court of Appeal 1996, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1144)“…Smith (5th Cir. 1992) 978 F.2d 171, 178 ; Pen. Code, § 632.7, subd. (c)(2).) The CI sought au…”
- Gruber v. Yelp Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2020)“…al courts have refused to dismiss or summarily adjudicate a Penal Code section 632.7 claim based merely on the fact that the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), California Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Cell and Landline (2026), California Penal Code § 632 Explained: Recording Consent
§ 633.5In forcecited in 9 of our articles
Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, or a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700. Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, or any crime in connection therewith.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Baker (California Court of Appeal 1978, 88 Cal. App. 3d 115)“…ction 632. 3 . Appellant has overlooked Penal Code section 633.5, 4 which is dispositive of…”
- Malinowski v. Martin (California Court of Appeal 2024)“…se permitted under statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act (Pen. Code, §§ 633.5 and 633.6). In the published port…”
- Geragos v. Abelyan (California Court of Appeal 2023)“…matter pleaded.”].) The Geragos Parties next contend Penal Code section 633.5 exempts Kazarian’s recording from exclu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), California Laws on Recording Doctors and Medical Appointments (2026)
California Civil Code
§ 1708.8In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. (b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used. (c) An assault or false imprisonment committed with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff is subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (h).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Richardson-Tunnell v. Schools Insurance Program for Employees (2007) held Section 1708.8 creates no exception to Government Code 821.6 immunity for a public entity's investigatory surveillance. Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) let a 1708.8(b) claim over a hidden tracker past an anti-SLAPP motion without reaching its elements.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (California Supreme Court 2009, 47 Cal. 4th 272)“…provisions is on the “intent to capture” a “visual image” (Civ. Code, § 1708.8, subd. (a)), or on the “attempt” to do…”
- Richardson-Tunnell v. Schools Insurance Program for Employees (California Court of Appeal 2007, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176)✓Workers' compensation investigators secretly videotaped an injured teacher at her wedding and honeymoon; the court held Civil Code section 1708.8 creates no exception to the investigatory immunity of Government Code section 821.6, so her claim against the public entities failed.
- Raef v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court (California Court of Appeal 2015, 240 Cal. App. 4th 1112)“…Erwin Chemerinsky explained in relation to another statute (Civ. Code, § 1708.8, which, too, forms part of what is popu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, California Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026), California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Rules for Home and Business (2026)
California Labor Code
§ 435In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(a) No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for changing clothes, unless authorized by court order. (b) No recording made in violation of this section may be used by an employer for any purpose. This section applies to a private or public employer, except the federal government. (c) A violation of this section constitutes an infraction.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2006
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Trujillo v. City of Ontario (District Court, C.D. California 2006, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1094)“…See, e.g., Cal.Penal Code §§ 647(k), 653(n); Cal. Labor Code 435. While the laws concerning video survei…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California AB 1331 Workplace Surveillance Bill Signed Into Law, California Employee Monitoring Laws: Employer Rules (2026), Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide)
Sources and References
- California Penal Code 632 - Eavesdropping(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 647(j) - Invasion of Privacy(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Labor Code 435 - Workplace Recording(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Civil Code 1708.8 - Physical Invasion of Privacy(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 637.2 - Civil Remedies(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 633.5 - Exception for Evidence of Crime(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 632.7 - Cell Phone Recording(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- AB-1331 Workplace Surveillance Bill (2025-2026)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Consumer Privacy Act - Attorney General(oag.ca.gov).gov