IANAL but the Court seems to have granted Google's motion to dismiss only for claims under CIPA Section 632 while denying it for all the other sections.<p>> the Court hereby GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss with
leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA section 632 claims<p>This is Section 632:<p>> Section 632 prohibits unauthorized electronic eavesdropping on confidential conversations. To state a claim under section 632, a plaintiff must allege an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on a confidential communication, and that not all parties consented to the
eavesdropping.<p>However, the Court has <i>not granted</i> Google's motion to dismiss claims related to other sections:<p>> The Court DENIES Google’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to all other claims.<p>So one of the sections that still stands is Section 631:<p>> Section 631 prohibits wiretapping or “any other unauthorized connection” with a “wire,
line, cable, or instrument.” The California Supreme Court has held that section 631 protects against three distinct types of harms: “intentional wiretapping, willfully
attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and
attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the
previous two activities.”<p>Which <i>probably</i> explains the title. I still don't agree with the title though.