Supreme Court declines to hear Google's request in Street View lawsuit

The Supreme Court allows a class-action lawsuit against Google for Wi-Fi snooping to move forward

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to throw out a class-action lawsuit against Google for sniffing Wi-Fi networks with its Street View cars.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied Google's request to hear the Street View case after a U.S. appeals court in September refused to throw out the class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that Google violated U.S. wiretapping laws when its Street View cars accessed unencrypted Wi-Fi networks as they drove through neighborhoods.

The Supreme Court, without comment, allowed the decision in Joffe v. Google by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stand. The appeals court had sided with a U.S. district court, which had denied Google's motion to dismiss claims that it had violated the Wiretap Act.

Google had argued that the data collected by the Street View cars were radio communications not covered by the Wiretap Act. Google also argued that the unencrypted Wi-Fi networks were readily available to the general public, described in the law as not covered by wiretap rules.

Google didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's decision.

U.S. residents filed several class-action lawsuits against Google shortly after the company acknowledged in mid-2010 that its Street View cars were accessing email, Web-surfing history and other "payload" data on unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

Several lawsuits against Google were consolidated in the Wiretap Act case, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

In March 2013, Google agreed to pay US$7 million to settle complaints from 38 states and the District of Columbia related to the WiFi data collection. The company also agreed to destroy the personal data it had collected.

Several other countries launched their own Street View investigations.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's email address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Tags GooglesecuritylegalCivil lawsuitsU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitU.S. Supreme Courtprivacy

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Latest News Articles

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?