## Facts

- Residents of several states maintained Wi‑Fi networks in their homes and used them to send and receive data packets containing payload data such as usernames, passwords, and personal emails.
- Home Wi‑Fi networks transmit data using radio waves.
- In 2006, Google created a data-collection system described as a “wireless sniffer” that could sample, collect, decode, and analyze data broadcast through Wi‑Fi connections.
- The wireless sniffer allegedly could capture packets, store them on digital media, and decode them using cryptographic or other sophisticated methods, making intercepted packets readable even when they would not otherwise be readable by the general public.
- In 2007, while launching Google Street View, Google sent vehicles equipped with the wireless-sniffer technology through residential neighborhoods.
- Google later admitted it collected Wi‑Fi payload data through the Street View vehicles in connection with its location-based services.
- Residents filed putative class actions alleging, among other claims, that Google intentionally intercepted the contents of their electronic communications in violation of the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.
- The cases were consolidated in an MDL in the Northern District of California, and Google moved to dismiss, arguing it was exempt under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i) because the communications were “readily accessible to the general public.”

## Issues

1. Whether alleged interception of payload data transmitted over residential Wi‑Fi networks falls within the Wiretap Act exemption for communications “readily accessible to the general public” under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i).
2. Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged an “intentional” interception of the contents of an “electronic communication” under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a), given the alleged design and use of Google’s wireless-sniffer system.

## Decision

- The court denied Google’s motion to dismiss the Wiretap Act claim.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true at the pleadings stage, the court held Google was not entitled to dismissal based on the “readily accessible to the general public” exemption because plaintiffs alleged the payload data was not otherwise readable by the general public and required specialized collection and decoding.
- The court concluded the complaint sufficiently alleged intentional interception based on allegations that Google created and deployed technology designed to collect and decode Wi‑Fi payload data and later acknowledged collecting that data for its services.

## Legal Principles

- The Wiretap Act prohibits intentionally intercepting the contents of an “electronic communication,” subject to specific statutory exemptions. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
- “Electronic communication” is defined broadly and includes transfers of data transmitted in whole or in part by radio or electromagnetic systems, unless a statutory exclusion applies. 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12).
- Section 2511(2)(g)(i) provides an exemption for interception of certain communications that are “readily accessible to the general public,” but the exemption does not automatically apply to every communication that uses radio waves.
- On a motion to dismiss, where plaintiffs allege that intercepted Wi‑Fi payload data was not readable to the general public without specialized collection and decoding, a court may decline to hold as a matter of law that the communication was “readily accessible to the general public.”
- Allegations that a defendant built and deployed a system to capture, store, and decode Wi‑Fi payload data can plausibly plead “intentional” interception at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court held that the residents plausibly stated a federal Wiretap Act claim based on allegations that Google’s Street View vehicles used a purpose-built wireless sniffer to capture and decode residential Wi‑Fi payload data, and the court declined to dismiss the claim on the ground that such communications were “readily accessible to the general public” under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i).


In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (2011)