Sometimes I just mention cases because they're neat. Particularly when they involve a class action in which I (and probably most of my readers) are members of the class.
Like this one.
Judge Bybee makes it easy for me. Here's the first paragraph of his opinion:
"In the course of capturing its Street View photographs, Google collected data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. Google publicly apologized, but plaintiffs brought suit under federal and state law, including the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Google argues that its data collection did not violate the Act because data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network is an 'electronic communication' that is 'readily accessible to the general public' and exempt under the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(g)(i). The district court rejected Google’s argument. In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Commc’n Litig.,794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1073–84 (N.D. Cal. 2011). We affirm."
Yep. That's the scoop. Accurate and concise.
So it's an actionable claim. Hence the class action goes forward.
Look for a settlement. Look for lots of money for the class action lawyers (e.g., Lieff Cabraser). Look for very little (if any) money for the actual class. Notwithstanding the fact that the minimum statutory damages are pretty darn high.
I hope I'm wrong. But I bet I'm not.
