Cyber Law

Running head: CYBER LAW
Cyber Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

CYBER LAW1
Table of Contents
Case 1: Google, Inc. Gmail Litigation.......................................................................................2
State the facts of the case.......................................................................................................2
Discuss the Issue....................................................................................................................2
Discuss the Arguments...........................................................................................................2
State applicable cyber law to the case....................................................................................3
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................3
Case 2: Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation v. Electronic Arts, Inc..........4
State the facts of the case.......................................................................................................4
Discuss the Issue....................................................................................................................4
Discuss the Arguments...........................................................................................................5
State applicable cyber law to the case....................................................................................5
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................6

CYBER LAW2
Case 1: Google, Inc. Gmail Litigation
State the facts of the case
Google was accused of reading off the emails from multiple users of Gmail without
authorisation and it had been continuing to read the email services by violating state and
federal anti-wiretapping laws. The plaintiffs, many in number, accused Google of its services
as a consolidated complaint. Court denied in part and granted in part Google's motion and
dismiss the law with leaves to amend. The operation of Gmail by Google was under the
above-mentioned laws as per the state and federal laws, the consolidated complaint by
various plaintiffs against Google wanted to seek damages on behalf of the organisation for its
interception of laws by reading of email over a period of years (Yilma, 2017).
Discuss the Issue
The issue was regarding reading of emails by Google which was considered as
violation of personal privacy. Over a span of two years, the plaintiff's complaint against
Google for reading the emails and the contents by intercepting the sent and received email
changed during transit (Alshammari & Singh, 2018). The interception of the devices we done
by reading in acquiring the content of each of the emails sent or received along with the
purpose of sending and receiving advertisements from the communication that has been done
through email from the end of the recipient of the sender or from both. The acquiring and
reading of email in transit was still affiliated to catch the keywords used in emails and use
them for their own business purpose. The plaintiffs also alleged that Google use this data for
creating user profiles with fake references and be used affiliated data.
Discuss the Arguments
The arguments were raised when the types of email services that Google allows was
found out. It clearly stated that this different but related systems of email delivery here were