> especially when proof is absent and providing proof was trivial. I don't think providing the proof is trivial. California is an all-party-consent-to-recordin

> especially when proof is absent and providing proof was trivial. I don't think providing the proof is trivial. California is an all-party-consent-to-recording state [1]. Recording your co-workers and then posting it to the LA times might expose you to being charged with a crime. Actually, I'm kind of surprised the article has so many allegations made in public, including quotes from the lawyer. IANAL but I thought standard operating procedure was to not talk to the media, because they're an unpredictable source of hassle and work that's ultimately irrelevant to winning the case. Maybe they involved the media because this is a class action suit, and they're trying to get the word out? Maybe someone actually familiar with this kind of stuff could clarify the strategic side of things. 1: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/is-it-illegal-to-record-someone-without-consent-in-california/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/is-it-ill...