<story><title>FTC Obtains $195M Judgment and Ban on Simple Health for Sham Insurance Offering</title><url>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-obtains-195-million-judgment-permanent-ban-telemarketing-selling-healthcare-products-against</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mschuster91</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s partially related to legal issues. Europe&amp;#x27;s GDPR makes the entire EU two-party consent (and some jurisdictions like DE&amp;#x2F;NL actually make secret recordings a crime), a lot of the US states are two-party consent as well... and so, instead of having to deal with compliance with these laws, they just block this ability entirely.</text></item><item><author>smallmancontrov</author><text>Why not? The smartphone manufacturers do everything they can to fight the ability of consumers to record, so I expect companies could get away with this for quite some time.</text></item><item><author>teraflop</author><text>If you find yourself doing this kind of thing:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Defendants also used a “verification rebuttal” script that instructed employees to provide different and conflicting answers to consumers’ common questions depending on whether the
verification was recorded or not. Id. ¶ 14(d). One “on recording” rebuttal stated that Defendants’ products “are not [h]ealth [i]insurance,” and the corresponding “off recording” rebuttal stated “[t]his is health insurance.”&lt;p&gt;then you should not be at all surprised when you get sued into oblivion.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lozenge</author><text>Surely they can provide the option, it&amp;#x27;s up to the end user to seek legally necessary consent before activating the recording feature.</text></comment>
<story><title>FTC Obtains $195M Judgment and Ban on Simple Health for Sham Insurance Offering</title><url>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-obtains-195-million-judgment-permanent-ban-telemarketing-selling-healthcare-products-against</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mschuster91</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s partially related to legal issues. Europe&amp;#x27;s GDPR makes the entire EU two-party consent (and some jurisdictions like DE&amp;#x2F;NL actually make secret recordings a crime), a lot of the US states are two-party consent as well... and so, instead of having to deal with compliance with these laws, they just block this ability entirely.</text></item><item><author>smallmancontrov</author><text>Why not? The smartphone manufacturers do everything they can to fight the ability of consumers to record, so I expect companies could get away with this for quite some time.</text></item><item><author>teraflop</author><text>If you find yourself doing this kind of thing:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Defendants also used a “verification rebuttal” script that instructed employees to provide different and conflicting answers to consumers’ common questions depending on whether the
verification was recorded or not. Id. ¶ 14(d). One “on recording” rebuttal stated that Defendants’ products “are not [h]ealth [i]insurance,” and the corresponding “off recording” rebuttal stated “[t]his is health insurance.”&lt;p&gt;then you should not be at all surprised when you get sued into oblivion.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>baobabKoodaa</author><text>&amp;gt; Europe&amp;#x27;s GDPR makes the entire EU two-party consent&lt;p&gt;This is false. Finland is part of the EU and recording conversations in Finland only requires one-party consent.</text></comment>