Assuming this happened in California in the recent past (post 1994), and the annoying outsourcing guy was not aware he was having audio recorded, congratulations -- you've just violated state law! (California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).) This is California Penal Code SS 630-638. Up to $2500 fine, 1 year in jail.
(any covert audio recordings of telephone/electronic conversations are also illegal in California; it's an all-party consent state, although you can disclose and report recording all business calls as a routine thing (you play a "we record all calls" at the beginning of the call, and staying on is implied consent). )
They could have overlooked this, but it would not seem odd to say it's being recorded, for whatever reason. Or even having a sign that says "audio and video recording in use" would probably suffice.
Yes, it's one party consent, two party notification. There was clear expectation of privacy (it wasn't a public meeting in a cafe, or a press conference). Hiding the identity of the outsourcing guy might legally change things -- I actually have no idea. The firm is trivially identifiable, but it might be enough. Regardless, it's irresponsible.
More ice blocks and real guerilla marketing, less bragging about violating employment laws or wiretapping vendors, please.
Assuming this happened in California in the recent past (post 1994), and the annoying outsourcing guy was not aware he was having audio recorded, congratulations -- you've just violated state law! (California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).) This is California Penal Code SS 630-638. Up to $2500 fine, 1 year in jail.
(any covert audio recordings of telephone/electronic conversations are also illegal in California; it's an all-party consent state, although you can disclose and report recording all business calls as a routine thing (you play a "we record all calls" at the beginning of the call, and staying on is implied consent). )
IANAL, but YGANVP.