Yes, I believe the "consent" is judged to have been given if a party continues the call after being informed that it is not a private, unrecorded call. So if on

Yes, I believe the "consent" is judged to have been given if a party continues the call after being informed that it is not a private, unrecorded call. So if one party announces that it's recording the call, all parties who continue the call (including the recording party) have supposedly consented to that breach of privacy. It's probably also not that unusual for Yelp to call a business that plays this announcements to its incoming callers, and actually records them. I can only guess that we haven't seen this evidence because the offended business might have preferred to settle things in private.