## Facts

- Google operated Google Maps’ “Street View,” which published street-level imagery captured by camera-equipped vehicles.
- Aaron and Christine Boring lived on a private road in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that they alleged was marked with a “Private Road, No Trespassing” sign.
- The Borings alleged that a Google Street View vehicle drove past the sign, entered their driveway, and took a photograph that showed only the exterior of their home, garage, and swimming pool.
- The Borings discovered that the image was publicly available on the Internet through Google’s Street View feature.
- The image of the exterior was similar to an existing photograph of the property that had appeared on the county assessor’s website.
- The Borings sued Google in Pennsylvania state court asserting, among other claims, intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy) and trespass. They also sought equitable relief and punitive damages.
- Google removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning (as relevant here) that the alleged conduct was not highly offensive for intrusion upon seclusion and that the Borings failed to allege damages from trespass.
- The Borings appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether Google’s alleged entry onto the Borings’ driveway and publication of an exterior photograph of the home stated a claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law.
2. Whether, under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must plead actual damages to state a claim for trespass based on an intentional, unprivileged entry onto land.
3. Whether the Borings stated claims for unjust enrichment and entitlement to injunctive relief, and whether their allegations supported punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.
- The Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the trespass claim and remanded for further proceedings; the Borings could pursue trespass even if recovery might be limited to nominal damages absent proof of actual harm.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of unjust enrichment, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.
- Overall disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law requires an intentional intrusion into a private place or affairs that is substantial and highly offensive to a reasonable person, typically causing shame, humiliation, or mental suffering.
- Photographing and publishing exterior views of a residence, where the image reveals no interior details and does not depict the residents, generally is not “highly offensive” as a matter of law under the intrusion-upon-seclusion standard.
- Trespass in Pennsylvania is an intentional, unprivileged physical entry onto land in another’s possession; actual damages are not an element of the claim.
- A trespass plaintiff may recover nominal damages even without proof of measurable loss; the cause of action protects the right to exclude others from one’s land.
- Unjust enrichment in Pennsylvania requires a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff and inequitable retention of that benefit; a defendant’s gain from its own conduct, without a plaintiff-conferred benefit, is insufficient.
- Injunctive relief is a remedy that requires, among other things, a showing of irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law; it is not established by alleging a past wrong alone.
- Punitive damages under Pennsylvania law require outrageous conduct or reckless indifference; they are unavailable absent a viable underlying claim and sufficiently extreme facts.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Google’s alleged photographing and online publication of a Street View image showing only the exterior of the Borings’ home was not the type of substantial, highly offensive intrusion required to plead intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania law, but it reinstated the trespass claim because an intentional, unprivileged entry onto private property is actionable even without pleaded actual damages, with nominal damages available to vindicate the right to exclude.


Boring v. Google, Inc., 362 F. App'x 273 (2010)