But Google wasn't using that argument apparently; rather they were claiming that the sender gave "implicit" consent -- not sure if this seems obviously true to me....
But Google wasn't using that argument apparently; rather they were claiming that the sender gave "implicit" consent -- not sure if this seems obviously true to me....
E.g., what if the recipient has a paid human assistant who screens his email, wherever hosted. Further assume the sender knows nothing about said assistant, but would be mortified if she did?
Google is the recipient's assistant and is compensated by being allowed to show the recipient ads based on an automated analysis of his email's content. How is an automated assistant materially different from a human one?
I don't see the problem.
“Google’s alleged interceptions are neither instrumental to the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the interceptions fall outside Google’s ordinary course of business...”