Intoxalock, a major provider of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) used by many drivers after a DUI/DWI, faced a class action over how it handled customer phone communications. The lawsuit alleged that Consumer Safety Technology LLC (doing business as Intoxalock) recorded telephone calls with sales representatives involving people tied to California—such as those with California phone prefixes or addresses—during the period from May 18, 2021, to February 8, 2022. For a company operating in a high-volume, highly regulated consumer-safety market where sales and support calls are routine, call recording can be common for “quality assurance,” but it also raises sharp privacy issues when proper notice and consent aren’t obtained. The case was filed because California has strict “two-party consent” protections, and the complaint pointed specifically to California Penal Code § 632.7, which generally prohibits recording calls involving cellular or cordless phones without the consent of all participants. The $1.7475 million settlement resolves the claims without requiring proof from individual class members (the administrator can verify numbers in company records), reflecting how these cases often turn on a business’s recording practices and logs rather than a caller’s ability to document what happened. Its significance is less about any one call and more about enforcing privacy rules in everyday customer interactions, especially when consumers may be calling about legally mandated services and may have little choice about which vendor they deal with. Broader implications extend well beyond Intoxalock: California’s privacy and recording laws frequently drive similar class actions against companies that record inbound/outbound calls without a clear, timely disclosure and an affirmative opportunity for callers to consent or opt out. The regulatory context is a patchwork—many states follow one-party consent while California requires all-party consent in many situations—so nationwide companies often standardize to the strictest rules or deploy state-specific prompts, disclosures, and recording controls. Cases like this underscore the compliance challenge for call centers and sales operations: “This call may be recorded” messages, documented consent flows, and careful handling of mobile/VoIP calls can be the difference between routine customer service and costly litigation over privacy rights under state law.