According to the ruling, they didn't violate the law because they were a part of the conversation.
They were just ordered to compensate the people the wiretapped for their lost revenue.
as for govt abusing the ability to record... historically govts abuse anti recording laws way more.
two party consent for recording is also pretty retarded and exists solely to make whistle blowing illegal
It also has the (unintended?) side-effect of having certain pieces of evidence (such as phones recording in pockets, et cetera) become inadmissible in court despite actually helping or even exonerating a defendant.
In cases where such a thing would be critical e.g. rape claims (more like false rape claims), burglaries where the thieving bastards got shot in self-defence, or where someone admits to coercion, they're dismissed because the perpetrator of the crime doesn't know they're being recorded. facepalm
Well, no shit! Do people really think they'd say this in front of a camera or recording device if they'd have known about it? That's like they're signing a fucking confession!
...Er, unless you're a dumbass social-media addict that uploads their crimes to Facebook or YouTube, but those people are so fucking stupid I'm surprised they haven't forgotten to breathe.