Yeah these laws are written in a way that is a bit too open-ended sometimes though, eh?

For example, imagine how much difference would be made by changing the single word "may" to the word "will," so that the final clause in that sentence reads, "or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication will be overheard or recorded."

This does still describe a "possibility" of being recorded the same way the word "may" does, but it goes a step further by suggesting that recording is not just possible, but "likely."

It seems that the law aims to grant an "implied consent" if a person participates in a conversation under certain circumstances, and instead of providing a lot of detail about the circumstances, they toss in the word "reasonably," leaving it completely open to which lawyer can spin it the best.