[tyingq]

Yes, laws overlap. The ones I'm talking about are generally about "intercepting communications" i.e., "recording conversations". In general, the US requires one-party consent, but there are 15 states that require two-party consent.

[varispeed]

So you can put your phone on recording e.g. in a restaurant "intercepting communications", but when someone calls you it's a no-no. Regardless, in my country recording is perfectly legal and yet Google has disabled it. If this is the law, then don't you think they should either follow it or not? I am not sure how you can only partially follow the law.

[tyingq]

They are doing the lazy thing and configuring it for "lowest common denominator". Yes, it's irritating. The effort to integrate GPS and allow/not-allow would be low.

Maybe it's complicated for telephone conversations where you're not breaking a law locally, but are breaking a law remotely?

[varispeed]

I'd rather think that insurance companies and similar who rely on sales over the phone lobbied Google to disable it. The law thing for me is too poorly done to be a valid excuse.