## Facts

- Google launched its Street View feature in 2007 using vehicles that photographed public streets.
- From 2007 to 2010, Street View vehicles also carried Wi‑Fi antennas and software that collected data from nearby Wi‑Fi networks.
- The equipment gathered (1) basic network-identifying information (e.g., SSID, MAC address, signal strength, and whether encryption was used) and (2) “payload data,” meaning the contents of communications transmitted over unencrypted Wi‑Fi networks.
- Plaintiffs alleged the payload data included private content such as emails, usernames, passwords, videos, and documents transmitted from homes and businesses.
- Plaintiffs brought federal and state claims, including claims under the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511.
- In consolidated multidistrict proceedings in the Northern District of California, Google moved to dismiss the Wiretap Act claims, asserting a statutory exemption for communications “readily accessible to the general public.”
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and Google took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Wi‑Fi payload data qualifies as a “radio communication” under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(16), such that it is treated as “readily accessible to the general public” when not encrypted.
2. If Wi‑Fi payload data is not a “radio communication” under § 2510(16), whether payload data sent over unencrypted Wi‑Fi is “readily accessible to the general public” under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the order denying Google’s motion to dismiss the Wiretap Act claims.
- The court held that Wi‑Fi payload data is not a “radio communication” within the meaning of § 2510(16).
- The court held that unencrypted Wi‑Fi payload data is not “readily accessible to the general public” under the ordinary meaning of that phrase in § 2511(2)(g)(i).
- As a result, Google could not invoke the “readily accessible to the general public” exemption to defeat the Wiretap Act claims at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- The Wiretap Act exemption in § 2511(2)(g)(i) applies only when an electronic communication system is configured so the communication is “readily accessible to the general public.”
- The specialized definition of public accessibility for “radio communication” in § 2510(16) is limited to enumerated categories and does not extend to Wi‑Fi payload data merely because Wi‑Fi uses radio frequencies.
- For § 2511(2)(g)(i), “readily accessible to the general public” is assessed by practical accessibility, not by the theoretical possibility of interception; the need for specialized equipment and software weighs against treating communications as readily accessible.
- Statutory exceptions to Wiretap Act protections are construed narrowly, and courts should avoid interpretations that would broadly remove modern electronic communications from federal privacy protections absent clear statutory direction.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that intercepting payload content from unencrypted Wi‑Fi networks is not exempted as interception of communications “readily accessible to the general public,” allowing the Wiretap Act claims to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage.


Joffe v. Google, Inc., 746 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2013)