794 F. Supp. 2d 1067
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege Google Street View vehicles intercepted data packets, including payload data, from residents' Wi‑Fi networks using a packet sniffer.
- Plaintiffs assert federal Wiretap Act claims, California UCL claims, and other state wiretap statutes; case consolidated and transferred to this court.
- Google moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint; a hearing occurred on March 21, 2011, with supplemental briefing following.
- The court analyzed whether wireless home networks are 'readily accessible to the general public' under § 2510(16) and how that affects exemption G1.
- The court denied in part and granted in part Google's motion, allowing an amended complaint, and dismissed certain state-law claims with prejudice or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of G1 to electronic communications | Plaintiffs: 2510(16) applies only to radio, not electronic; G1 should survive | Google: 2510(16) applies to all electronic communications under G1 | 2510(16) applies narrowly to radio; G1 not precluded for Wi‑Fi payloads |
| Sufficiency of Wiretap Act pleading | Plaintiffs allege intentional interception of non-readily accessible Wi‑Fi payloads | Google contends networks were readily accessible or open | Plaintiffs plead sufficient facts to state a Wiretap Act claim |
| Preemption of state wiretap statutes | State statutes not preempted; still viable | Federal Act preempts state wiretap schemes | State wiretap claims preempted; dismissed with prejudice |
| Proposition 64 standing for § 17200 claim | Alleged injury in fact and lost property from unfair practices | Standing requirements not satisfied; privacy invasion insufficient | Proposition 64 standing not pleaded; dismissed with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must be plausible, not merely conclusory)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. 2004) (statutory text as starting point for interpretation)
- In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation, 483 F. Supp. 2d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (preemption and field related considerations in ECPA context)
- In re Matter of the Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the Roving Interception of Oral Communications, 349 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (issues concerning interpretations of 'radio communication')
- Barquis v. Merchants Collection Ass'n, 7 Cal.3d 94 (Cal. 1972) (standing and statutory interpretation context for California law)