2. Section 2511(2)(d) According to the defendants, even if we find that the plaintiffs adequately plead the acquisition of “content,” we may affirm nevertheless under § 2511(2)(d). Section 2511(2)(d) sets forth that “[i]t shall not be unlawful . . . for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication . . . unless 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.” The defendants contend that they were the intended recipients of—and thus “parties” to— any electronic transmissions that they acquired and tracked, and that, as they committed no secondary criminal or tortious act, their conduct cannot have been unlawful under the statute. a. How the Information at Issue Was Acquired Before we can assess whether the defendants were “parties” to the electronic transmissions at issue, we must first identify what, exactly, are the transmissions at issue. In the portion of the complaint devoted to the plaintiffs’ Wiretap Act claim, the complaint states that “the [d]efendants’ third-party web tracking permitted them to information that’s being sent at that time.”). This is consistent with our understanding of the allegations of the plaintiffs, as discussed in detail below. 28