Viva Aerobus Call Recording Settlement: What California Consumers Need to Know

Viva Aerobus agreed to pay $3,950,000 to resolve a California class action that accused the Mexican low-cost airline of recording customer service calls without the consent of all parties, in alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The case, Rahmat v. Aeroenlaces Nacionales S.A. de C.V. d/b/a Viva Aerobus, Case No. 2023CUBT012357, was filed in Ventura County Superior Court and covers inbound and outbound calls involving Viva Aerobus's customer service department between August 7, 2022, and November 10, 2023.

Viva Aerobus denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid prolonged litigation. California class members could claim up to approximately $100 per qualified call, far above the per-capita base value of $21.45 written into the settlement formula.

Quick Answer: What This Settlement Covers

The settlement resolves allegations that Viva Aerobus intentionally recorded telephone calls between its customer service department and California consumers without obtaining consent. Under California law — specifically Penal Code section 632.7 — all parties to a call involving a cellular or cordless telephone must consent before the call can be recorded. Eligible class members include anyone who, while located in California during the class period, placed a call to or received a call from Viva Aerobus customer service at (866) 359-8482 or from the airline's lost and found center in Mexico (+52 81 8215 0196).

The Core Allegation: Two-Party Consent Under California Law

California is one of about a dozen states that require all-party consent to record a phone call. The governing statute is the California Invasion of Privacy Act, codified at California Penal Code sections 630 through 638. The specific provision at the heart of the Viva Aerobus case is Penal Code section 632.7, which makes it unlawful to intentionally record a communication transmitted between cellular or cordless telephones without the consent of every party.

The California Supreme Court clarified the reach of this statute in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal. 5th 183 (2021), holding that section 632.7 applies to both parties and non-parties to a call. In practical terms, a company cannot record its own customer service call without telling the caller and getting consent. A "this call may be monitored or recorded" disclosure given at the start of the call is the industry-standard method of obtaining implied consent.

The plaintiffs in Rahmat alleged that Viva Aerobus failed to provide that disclosure — or obtained consent only after recording had begun, which courts have consistently rejected as invalid under CIPA.

Who Qualifies for the Viva Aerobus Settlement

The settlement class consists of California residents (or people physically located in California at the time of the call) who made or received a recorded call to or from Viva Aerobus customer service between August 7, 2022, and November 10, 2023. Eligibility does not require that the consumer be a Viva Aerobus passenger; it only requires that the call was made during the class period, involved the airline's customer service line, and was recorded.

The named plaintiffs are Margarita Rahmat and Anilu Benavides. The court approved service awards of $20,000 and $5,000 respectively, totaling $25,000 in incentive payments recognizing their role as class representatives.

Settlement Structure and Payout

The headline fund is $3.95 million. After deducting administration costs, class representative incentives, and attorneys' fees and costs (up to $1,316,666 for Class Counsel), the net settlement fund is estimated at approximately $2,433,334. That net fund is distributed to settlement class members who submitted timely and valid claim forms, divided on a per-qualified-call basis.

The gap between the $21.45 base value and the ~$100 actual payout reflects a common reality in class action settlements: most eligible class members never file a claim. Published data from the class action industry consistently shows that more than 90% of settlement funds go unclaimed in notice-based cases, which inflates the individual payout for those who do file.

Key Deadlines and Hearing Dates

The Rahmat settlement moved through two sets of deadlines. Under the amended schedule, claim forms, exclusion requests, and objections had to be postmarked by March 31, 2025. The final fairness hearing was set for May 20, 2025, in Ventura County Superior Court. Consumers who missed those deadlines are bound by the settlement's release of claims and cannot pursue individual lawsuits over the same conduct.

Why CIPA Cases Keep Happening

The Viva Aerobus case is one of hundreds of CIPA class actions filed in California courts each year. A single violation under Penal Code section 637.2 — the civil remedy provision of CIPA — carries statutory damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Because plaintiffs do not need to prove actual harm to collect statutory damages, a company that records even a modest volume of calls without consent can face exposure in the tens of millions of dollars once a class is certified.

Several factors make call recording particularly risky for businesses with California customers:

1. CIPA applies to any company whose recorded calls reach a person located in California, regardless of where the company is headquartered. Viva Aerobus is based in Mexico, but that did not shield it from the California statute.
2. The statute of limitations is only one year from the date of the recording, under Penal Code section 637.2, although equitable tolling can apply when the consumer did not know the call was being recorded.
3. Consent must be given before recording begins — retroactive agreement in a privacy policy is generally insufficient under California case law.

How Call Recording Violations Are Proven

In a typical CIPA call-recording case, the plaintiff's attorneys subpoena the defendant's call logs and recording practices. The defendant's own records often identify the phone numbers of every caller whose conversation was captured without an opening disclosure. That internal log becomes the class list — which is why the settlement administrator in the Viva Aerobus case was able to mail notices directly to consumers whose numbers appeared in Viva Aerobus's records.

If a consumer received a mailed or emailed notice about this settlement, it means their phone number was identified in the defendant's call data as having been part of a recorded, unconsented-to call during the class period.

What to Do If You Receive a Class Action Notice

Consumers who receive a notice of a class action settlement — whether from the Viva Aerobus case or any other — have four options: file a claim, exclude themselves (opt out), object to the settlement, or do nothing. Each choice carries legal consequences. Filing a claim is the only path to receiving a payment, but it also binds the consumer to the release, meaning they give up the right to sue the defendant separately over the same conduct.

Opting out preserves the right to sue individually but forfeits any share of the settlement. Doing nothing results in inclusion in the class and release of claims without receiving any payment. Consumers who are unsure of their rights should consult a consumer protection attorney before the exclusion deadline passes.

Broader Trend: Privacy Class Actions Are Accelerating

Call recording cases like Rahmat are part of a larger wave of privacy litigation in California. The same statutory framework — CIPA — now supports lawsuits over website session-replay tools, live chat widgets, and tracking pixels, with courts interpreting Penal Code sections 631 and 632.7 to reach modern digital communications. Industry estimates suggest that plaintiff firms have filed tens of thousands of CIPA claims since 2022, making it one of the most actively enforced privacy statutes in the United States.

For consumers, the takeaway is that California law gives them real leverage when companies record conversations without disclosure. For attorneys, call-recording cases remain one of the most reliable vehicles for consumer privacy class actions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Viva Aerobus call recording settlement?

It is a $3,950,000 class action settlement in Rahmat v. Viva Aerobus, Ventura County Superior Court Case No. 2023CUBT012357, resolving allegations that the airline recorded California customers' service calls without consent in violation of California Penal Code section 632.7.

Who was eligible to file a claim?

California residents or people located in California who made or received a recorded call to or from Viva Aerobus's customer service department between August 7, 2022, and November 10, 2023.

How much could class members receive?

The base per-capita value is $21.45 per qualified call, but actual payouts are estimated at approximately $100 per call because most eligible claimants do not file. Exact amounts depend on the total number of valid claims submitted.

What was the claim deadline?

The amended deadline for claim forms, exclusion requests, and objections was March 31, 2025. The final fairness hearing was scheduled for May 20, 2025.

What law did Viva Aerobus allegedly violate?

California Penal Code section 632.7, part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The statute prohibits intentionally recording a communication over a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of all parties.

Does CIPA apply to companies outside California?

Yes. Under Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006), California's two-party consent rule applies whenever the person on the call is located in California, even if the recording company is based in another state or country.

What are CIPA statutory damages?

Under California Penal Code section 637.2, a plaintiff may recover $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. No proof of actual harm is required.

What is the statute of limitations for a CIPA claim?

Most courts apply a one-year statute of limitations under Penal Code section 637.2. Equitable tolling may extend that period when the plaintiff did not know the recording occurred.

Did Viva Aerobus admit wrongdoing?

No. The airline denied all liability and agreed to settle to avoid continued litigation costs and deliver prompt benefits to class members.

Who represented the class?

The court appointed Eric A. Grover of Keller Grover LLP and Scot D. Bernstein of the Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation, as Class Counsel.

If I missed the claim deadline, can I still sue Viva Aerobus?

Generally no. Class members who did not opt out by March 31, 2025, are bound by the settlement's release and cannot bring individual claims over the same call-recording conduct.

How can I tell if a company is recording my call legally?

In California, the company must disclose the recording before it begins — typically through an automated announcement or a live agent's statement — and you must have an opportunity to decline by hanging up. Continuing the call after the disclosure generally constitutes implied consent.

Disclaimer

This content is for general informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Joy Coleman is licensed in Georgia and New Jersey and is not licensed to practice law in California. Readers should consult a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.

If you believe a company recorded your calls without consent while you were in California, you may want to speak with a consumer protection attorney who handles CIPA and privacy class actions. You can also use AttorneyReview.com's Get Matched feature to connect directly with attorneys who handle call recording and consumer privacy cases.