Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Data Privacy Legislation

Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 70 Issue 2 Article 13 2019 Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Data Privacy Legislation Helen Jazzar Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Helen Jazzar, Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Data Privacy Legislation, 70 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 457 (2019) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol70/iss2/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 70·Issue 2·2019 — Note — Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Data Privacy Legislation Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 457 I. History of the Wiretap Act and Relevant Case Law .............. 459 A. History ................................................................................................. 460 B. Relevant Case Law ............................................................................... 461 1. Judge Koh: Narrow ......................................................................... 464 2. Judge Grewal: Broad ...................................................................... 465 3. Chief Judge Hamilton: Functional .................................................. 467 II. Statutory Text ......................................................................... 469 A. Electronic Communication .................................................................. 470 B. Device .................................................................................................. 472 C. Penalties .............................................................................................. 474 III. Proposal for Federal Legislation .......................................... 477 A. European Union General Data Protection Regulation ......................... 478 B. California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ........................................... 479 C. Analysis ............................................................................................... 481 D. Proposal ............................................................................................... 482 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 486 Introduction The things that other people do not know about us are the things that make us human. Despite all of the benefits technology brings society, many digital users are left wondering how safe their personal information is when social media websites, search engines, Internet service providers, and other electronic communications service provid– ers (“ECSPs”) collect and sell their data for commercial gain. With outdated legislation ill-suited to deal with modern technological advances, digital users have resorted to filing suit against ECSPs under a 1986 law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), which forms Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the “Wiretap Act”).1 Digital users allege that ECSPs are guilty of wiretapping when ECSPs “intercept”2 information 1. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522 (2012). 2. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) (2012) (providing criminal and civil sanctions for “any person who . . . intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, 457 Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 70·Issue 2·2019 Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Data Privacy Legislation contained in electronic communications sent via ECSPs’ platforms for the purpose of creating online-targeted advertisements.3 Courts should not interpret the Wiretap Act to include conduct it was never intended to encompass.4 Leaving ECSPs amenable to suit under the Wiretap Act for conducting customary digital marketing practices stretches the text and purpose of the statute too far. Instead of applying the Wiretap Act to digital marketing practices, Congress should create a new federal data privacy law that governs the digital marketing industry as a whole. This Note explains that ECSPs are not guilty of wiretapping when they use a digital user’s information to create targeted advertisements because ECSPs are not “intercepting” an “electronic communication” under the Wiretap Act. This Note proposes that Congress adopt a new federal data privacy law that provides digital users the ability to retain control over how their personal information is shared. Part I analyzes the legislative history of the Wiretap Act and relevant court decisions interpreting its language. Part II looks to the text and structure of the Wiretap Act, highlighting the statute’s in– applicability to digital marketing practices. Lastly, by comparing the European Union General Data Protection Regulation5 and the Cali– fornia Consumer Privacy Act of 2018,6 Part III proposes attributes that new federal data privacy legislation should possess. oral, or electronic communication”); see also id. §§ 2511(4)–(5) (describing civil and criminal liability for a violation of subsection (1)). 3. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) (“Plaintiffs contend that Google violated the Wiretap Act in its operation of the Gmail system by intentionally intercepting the content of emails that were in transit to create profiles of Gmail users and to provide targeted advertisements.”). 4. Ariel Dobkin, Information Fiduciaries in Practice: Data Privacy and User Expectations, 33 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 2, 5 (2018) (“Despite this admitted lack of transparency, the U.S. government does not adequately regulate service providers in any comprehensive way.”); Crystal Schreiber, Note, Google’s Targeted Advertising: An Analysis of Privacy Protections in an Internet Age, 24 Transnat’l L. & Contemp. Probs. 269, 286 (2014) (“The current U.S. federal laws provide too little protection for [I]nternet users. The pace at which technology and economic incentives have developed the marketplace has drastically exceeded the pace of protective legislation.”). 5. Directive 2016/679, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 [hereinafter GDPR]. 6. California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100– .199 (West 2018) [hereinafter CCPA]. 458 Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 70·Issue 2·2019 Bringing an End to the Wiretap Act as Dat (...truncated)