Call Recording of Organic Search

Agency Jet will record all Google Organic phone calls that are initiated by a call-only ad or call extension by using a cookie that is added to the computer that found your company online via a GOOGLE search.

This allows us to improve call quality for both your potential clients and your staff members. It’s used to evaluate call quality, staff’s best practices, and identify sales. It also ensures that Agency Jet is providing a positive call experience using SEO to increase traffic and calls that could lead to new business. 

How it works

To create call-only ads and call extensions, you will need to accept the Call and Messaging Ads Terms in your agreement. When someone calls your company from a call-only ad or call extension that Agency Jet adds, Google may record the entire call. The user will hear a short message informing them that the call will be recorded by Google for quality assurance.

Calls may be evaluated for various quality indicators and other factors in order to detect how your team may be able to improve the intake process, you may hear sales, and will hear all inquiries. 

What we recommend

You inform your company that calls may be recorded, which ironically increases sales, professionalism on the phone, and shows the company you’re investing in advertising to help the team be more successful. 

The Law

United States

In Rathbun v United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in regard to interstate or foreign communication that "the clear inference is that one entitled to receive the communication may use it for his own benefit or have another use it for him. The communication itself is not privileged, and one party may not force the other to secrecy merely by using a telephone. It has been conceded by those who believe the conduct here violates Section 605 [of the Federal Communication Act] that either party may record the conversation and publish it." See United States v. Polakoff, 113 F. 2d 888, 889.

Federal law requires that at least one party taking part in the call must be notified of the recording (18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d)).

Call recording laws in some U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while other states require both parties to be aware. Several states require that all parties consent when one party wants to record a telephone conversation.]

Telephone recordings are governed by federal law and by mainly two types of state laws:

Two-party consent states

States that still require that all parties consent to the recording include:

• California
• Connecticut (Only for electronic recordings made by a third party that is not participating in the conversation, for in-person recordings, the rule is always one-party consent.) 
• Florida
• Hawaii* (in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place) 
• Illinois (except for electronic communications, see next section) 
• Maryland
• Massachusetts (only "secret" recordings are banned, but is the only state without a "public location" exception) 
• Montana (requires notification only 
• New Hampshire
• Oregon* (One party for electronic communications, two party for in-person conversations)
• Pennsylvania
• Washington (however, section 3 of the Washington law states that permission is given if any of the parties announces that they will be recording the call in a reasonable manner if the recording contains that announcement). 
• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Colorado
• Connecticut (For in-person conversations or phone calls recorded by a participant of the conversation)
• District of Columbia
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois* (One party for private electronic communications only)
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Michigan* (One party only if the recording party is a participant in the conversation)
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York 
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon* (One party for electronic communications, two party for in-person conversations)
• Rhode Island (Although consent is not required when the recorded party does not have a reason to expect privacy)
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah 
• Vermont
• Virginia
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin (Two party consent required to be used in court)
• Wyoming

Some states distinguish between electronic and in-person communication. For example, Oregon is a one-party consent state for electronic communication, but requires all-party consent for live in-person communication, with a few exceptions. 

The California Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95). However, non-disclosure recordings by one of the parties can legally be made if the other party is threatening kidnapping, extortion, bribery, human trafficking, or other felony violence. Also included in the exception is misdemeanor obscenity and threats of injury to persons or property via an electronic communication device (usually a telephone) if directed in whole or in part towards a conversation participant or family members. 

Following the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in People v. Clark/Melongo on March 20, 2014, which struck down Illinois' two-party consent law, Illinois was a one-party consent state. However, the state legislature amended the statute and, as of December 30, 2014, Illinois is once again a two-party consent state,] although the revised law establishes a one-party consent rule for private electronic communications. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in 1982 that participants in a conversation may record a discussion without getting the permission of other participants.] The ruling stated that eavesdropping only applies to: "a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation being eavesdropped on". This is because the law uses the wording, "the private discourse of others", rather than the wording, "the private discourse of others or with others". Michigan law is often misinterpreted as requiring the consent of all parties to a conversation.