intrusion is so serious ‘in nature, scope, and actual or potential impact as to constitute an egregious breach of the social norms.���”116 When presented with parallel privacy claims under tort law and the California Constitution, the California Supreme Court has performed a dual inquiry “under the rubric of both . . . tests.”117 This “consider[s] (1) the nature of any intrusion upon reasonable expectations of privacy, and (2) the offensiveness or seriousness of the intrusion, including any justification and other relevant interests.”118 In evaluating the offensiveness of an invasion, the court is to consider “pragmatic policy concerns” such that “no cause of action will lie for accidental, misguided, or excusable acts of overstepping upon legitimate privacy rights.”119 In dismissing the freestanding privacy claims, the District Court concluded that Google’s alleged practices “did not rise to the level of a serious invasion of privacy or an egregious breach of social norms.”120 Contending the District 116 Id. (quoting Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633, 655 (Cal. 1994)). 117 Id. at 1073-74. 118 Id. at 1074. 119 Id. at 1079; Hill, 865 P.2d at 675 (“Whether [a] plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances and whether [a] defendant’s conduct constitutes a serious invasion of privacy are mixed questions of law and fact.”). 120 In re Google, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 449. 52