> Option 2 seems weird since I'm pretty sure Google Voice lets you record calls.

Only inbound calls, not outbound, and that's by design - it's to ensure both parties consent (since there's no way for Google to know whether the call falls under one-party or two-party consent laws).

What does inbound vs outbound have to do with consent?

When you start recording a call, it plays a brief message (e.g. "this call is now being recorded"). If it's an outbound call, you could start recording before the other person has actually picked up. If it's inbound, they "know" that the other person will hear the message.

It's not actually foolproof if you sit down and think about the edge cases, but that's the rationale behind it. It's a decision driven by the legal team, not the product or engineering ones.

Are there any major jurisdictions where this is actually a requirement? I was under the impression that a) it makes no sense, anyone could use an external recorder, and more importantly b) when you are talking with someone, you don't have an expectation of privacy from the person you are talking with?

Where would this meaningless feature-cripling make sense?

> Are there any major jurisdictions where this is actually a requirement?

For starters, twelve states in the US, including California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Unite...

And telecom companies (Google acting in the role of a telecom company in this case) have certain responsibilities and liabilities if they facilitate illegal recordings.