I am pretty familiar with the legalities of USA one-party and two-party recording laws, but there is one piece of the puzzle that doesn't seem clear.
For some background, I received a call from a Missouri number (landline). We discussed some things and figured out how we wanted to handle them. I then asked if the call was being recorded. The caller said "yes" and he was located in Kansas. I told them that was illegal (I will get into the why in a moment). I was in Missouri at the time the call (cell:T-Mobile) initiated. (Both are one-party consent states.)
Now for the "why". At the surface, this looks legal. But my understanding is that if the call is routed by the phone companies through a state that is a two-party state (e.g., California), it must follow the two-party consent rules of recording. Since all calls are digital and managed by computer network routing algorithms, it is completely feasible the call could be routed through a two-party state.
Since they failed to state that the call was being recorded at the beginning of the call (and there were no distinctive beeps), I believe they are in violation of the law (as it would be nearly impossible to prove where the call was routed without tons of digging through multiple phone company records, switch logs, discovery, etc).
When I have posed this question to lawyers I have worked with in the past, they get that glassy-eyed look and don't really know how to respond. So I figured a larger audience with a more technical understanding of routing, might be a better fit for my question.
Thank you for your time.
Update 5/21/21: I found an occurrence (from the Hobbs Act info @bdb484 provided) where a call in Georgia was routed to Florida then back to Georgia. Here's the source information: https://casetext.com/analysis/interstate-offenses
United States v. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2003)
The initial panel decision in this case held that use of a telephone to make an intrastate phone call was not sufficient to create federal jurisdiction under the 2002 version of 18 U.S.C. § 1958, the murder for hire statute. Though the telephone system is an instrumentality in interstate commerce, the statute, as construed by the Eleventh Circuit, requires a call that actually travels in interstate commerce. The element was actually satisfied in this case, because the cell phone call relayed the signal from a place in south Georgia, to a tower in north Florida and then back to the recipient of the call in south Georgia. Though the caller and recipient of the call were in Georgia, the signal actually traveled in interstate commerce. The statute was subsequently amended to specifically provide for a conviction if a facility of interstate commerce was used – i.e., a telephone – even if the call was purely intrastate.
While it doesn't answer my question, it is interesting that it was important to recognize that the call "relayed the signal" through a two-party state.