research of Mayer and the Wall Street Journal; and it was of indefinite duration, with Google’s counsel conceding at argument that their tracking cookies have no natural lifespan. Particularly as concerns Google’s public statements regarding the Safari cookie blocker, we see no justification. Neither, apparently, do the elected branches, as California and federal executive agencies have themselves sought to penalize Google for the events alleged in the complaint.133 Based on the pled facts, a reasonable factfinder could indeed deem Google’s conduct “highly offensive” or “an egregious breach of social norms.”134 A reasonable jury could conclude that Google’s alleged practices constitute the serious invasion of privacy contemplated by California law. We will vacate the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under the California Constitution and California tort law. B. California Invasion of Privacy Act We next consider the plaintiffs’ claim against Google for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a). Like the federal Wiretap Act, § 631(a) “broadly prohibits the interception of wire communications and disclosure of the contents of such intercepted communications.”135 The California Supreme Court has 133 Compl. ¶¶ 166-68; infra n. 12. 134 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 135 Tavernetti v. Superior Court, 583 P.2d 737, 739 (Cal. 1978). 56