Goldman claimed he had a reasonable expectation that privacy would not be recorded, and that the act itself violated California’s two-party consent law.

If the video isn’t posted online, it’s likely to stay there forever. He claims not only was he illegally recorded, but that posting the video on the internet violated his right to privacy. It hurt him a lot when it went viral.

In addition to the reasons listed in Stephanie’s answer, I’d like to know from Goldman whether he saw the camera, knew it was working, etc. It’s hard to believe he wasn’t aware of this possibility and gave you some form of tacit permission not to ask it to be turned off.

The lawsuit, filed by Golden in early December but disclosed to the media only last week, alleges that not only was Caban not harmed in the October incident, but that all damages were caused by Caban himself or “other third parties.”

Additionally, the lawsuit states that due to the “overwhelming media coverage” of the dashcam video, which has been viewed more than 2 million times on YouTube, Golden suffered “serious emotional distress, humiliation, fear, anxiety, distress, distress and loss” “His work has been affected.”

Days after the Oct. 30 incident, Golden apologized for the attack, saying he was drunk when he got into the car, but admitted his actions were inexcusable and inappropriate. For his part, Caban was charged with $25,000 in assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Caban has since left Uber.

CBS legal analyst Rikki Klieman called Golden’s case ridiculous, noting that it rests on an unlikely interpretation of California’s two-parties consent law, which by requiring all parties involved in a private conversation to be aware of it at the time of recording Illegal wiretapping is prohibited.

“The real buzzwords are private and confidential,” Kleeman told CBS This Morning. “I mean, when you’re in a car, taxi, bus, or Uber, you end up in a public setting. People can watch you.”

In such an environment, the intimate, confidential conversations mandated by California law are impossible, Klieman added.

Klieman said Golden’s ultimate motivation for filing the lawsuit may have been to have the video banned during the criminal proceedings. But even if this legal maneuver worked, Goldman could still lose “because you have the driver’s watch”.

Or as one Facebook user put it of Golden, “If he wins this ridiculous lawsuit, I hope the jury only awards him a dollar, or better yet, a penny. Millions of dollars in punitive damages.”