For years, it has been widely acknowledged that Google, Inc.
("Google") scans incoming and outgoing e-mails associated
with individual Gmail accounts in order to deliver targeted
advertising to Gmail account holders. While Gmail subscribers
may have consented to e-mail scanning when they signed up for
Google's services, many non-subscribers that have sent e-mails
to Gmail account holders never directly authorized Google to scan
the contents of those communications. Now, a new class action
lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania by a non-Gmail subscriber raises the
question of whether Google's practices, and potentially those
of other online services and companies that review or monitor
online communications of various kinds, violate various individual
state laws that prohibit interception of electronic communications
without the consent of all parties to a communication.
The complaint in this case (Brinkman v. Google, Inc.) was filed on
November 30, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. It alleges that Google
violated Pennsylvania law by intercepting emails the plaintiff sent
to Gmail account holders without the plaintiff's knowledge,
consent or permission. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
Google's actions constituted a violation of Section 5703 of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act, which, among other things,
establishes that intentional interception and disclosure of certain
electronic communications are unlawful.
The plaintiff is seeking certification of class status for other
similarly situated persons, declaratory and injunctive relief,
punitive damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and an
award of statutory damages for the plaintiff and each member of the
class for the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or
This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We
provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein &
Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not
be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or
omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which
they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent
clients in other jurisdictions.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This past summer, we wrote about two instances in which courts refused to enforce website terms presented in browsewrap agreements. As we noted, clickthrough agreements are generally more likely to be found to be enforced.
It is with regret that your blogger here must report that he was correct as far back as early-April 2015 in predicting that the private email scenario surrounding Hillary Clinton would be a real threat...
2016 has been a challenging year for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the website operators who depend on it for protection against liability stemming from user-generated content
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).