How to Write a Case Study Know

Running head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
CASE STUDY
GMAIL LITIG. V. GOOGLE, INC. (IN RE GOOGLE INC.)
Facts:
In the present case, a multi-district class action has been brought by plaintiffs of
different states, against Google Inc., who is a user of Gmail service provided by Google. The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendant company has breached the provisions of state and federal
anti wiretapping laws to implement the operation of Gmail. The plaintiffs in this complaint
seek damages on behalf of several Gmail and non-Gmail users stating the reason for the
company's continuous interception of emails from several years which happened at the time
of sending or receiving emails by using Gmail service. However, the U.S District Court
denies the suit stating that all the allegations of the plaintiff against Google are not identical
to each other, therefore cannot bring under a single suit.
Issue:
The issue, in this case, was whether Google Inc. was guilty of violating the state and
federal anti wiretapping laws mentioned under ECF No. 38–2. Furthermore, another issue is
that whether the interception over user's moments is falling within the ordinary course of
business of Google Inc in their dealing with Gmail service and whether such definition falls
within the purview of exclusion of the definition of the device mentioned in ECF No. 44 at 6–
13. Another issue to be discussed in this regard is that whether Google has intentionally
violated the provisions of the Wiretap Act in its function of the Gmail system by an interrupt
with the substance of emails which said to be in conveyance to make profiles of Gmail users
and further to provide aimed advertising. Furthermore, it is to be seen in this case whether
such interruption by Google Inc in the user's email amounts to a data breach on the part of
Google or not.

2
CASE STUDY
Analysis:
Google Inc. Contended that while using Gmail services, the plaintiffs gave their
consent to the privacy agreement provided by Google to modify the contents such as those
originating from the translations, alterations or from other necessary changes to ensure the
better working of the client's content while using the service and clients (plaintiff's in this
case) by consenting to the privacy policies and terms of Service, unintentionally gave the
company requisite authority to spook over the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has consented to
Google to read their emails as mentioned in ECF No. 44 at 14–16. Google further claimed
that even if the non–Gmail users did not give their consent to the terms of Service or privacy
policies envisaged by google, their implied consent comes into picture while they send or
receive an email from the Gmail user id (Rushe, 2013). The court in the case of United States
v. Van Poyck, held that characteristics of a consent regarding interception can both be explicit
or implied provided it must be actual. Therefore, the court opined the view that if parties have
consented to an interception, then it cannot be held to be a infringement of the Wiretap Act.
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (Rahavy, 2003). Furthermore, while giving their opinion about
another contention of Google regarding interception is natural as an ordinary course of
business, the court of law held that few of the acts such as spam control, can be considered as
an activity during the ordinary course of business in respect to an electronic communication
service provider, but the scope of the same is very narrow due to their instrumental
characteristics to the stipulation of email service (Dunbar v. Google, Inc.).
Conclusion:
It can be concluded from the fact of the case that, I cannot agree with the ruling of the
court as this is a case of a data breach and therefore it can be contended as stealing of data
which is a threat to the Christian Perspective. Therefore, the court should consider the facts of