“reset your browser to refuse all cookies.”126 Google further assured Safari users specifically that their cookie blockers meant that using Google’s in-house prophylactic would be extraneous. Characterized by deceit and disregard, the alleged conduct raises different issues than tracking or disclosure alone.127 Directly pertinent to whether Google’s alleged practices implicated a protected privacy interest, California tort law treats as actionable an “unwanted access to data by electronic or other covert means, in violation of the law or social norms.”128 Moreover, the California Constitution protects an interest in “conducting personal activities without observation,” with the reasonableness of any given expectation “rest[ing] on an examination of customs . . . as well as the opportunity to be notified in advance and consent to the intrusion.”129 To Google’s point, a sophisticated 126 Compl. ¶ 80. 127 See Kristen Lovin, SafariGate: Benign Behavior or Malignant Breach?, Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. (Feb. 22, 2012), http://stlr.org/2012/02/22/safarigate-benign-behavioror-malignant-breach/ (“[O]ne could say that Google ignored the express desires of its users, elevating its own commercial interests over the user’s personal privacy interests. This kind of disregard may be particularly troubling given the relative bargaining power that an individual consumer has against a monolith like Google.”). 128 Hernandez, 211 P.3d at 1072 (internal quotation marks omitted). 129 Id. at 1073 (internal quotation marks omitted). 54