several statutory exceptions, one is the exception of § 2511(2)(d). Section 2511(2)(d) provides that, ordinarily, no cause of action will lie against a private person “where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.”22 1. Acquisition of “Content” The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim on the basis that the defendants’ alleged conduct did not involve the acquisition of communications “content.” While the plaintiffs allege that the defendants acquired and tracked the URLs they visited, the Act defines “contents” as “any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of th[e] communication [at issue].”23 The District Court held that, “[a]s described by their name, ‘Universal Resource Locators,’ . . . . a URL is a location identifier and does not ‘concern [ ] the substance, purport, or meaning’ of an electronic communication.’”24 22 The exception does not apply if “such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). 23 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8). 24 In re: Google, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 444 (final alteration in original) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 2510(8)). 17