(a)Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any
way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1)Any public utility, or telephone company, engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof,
where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public
utility or telephone company.
(2)The use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility.
(3)Any
telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(c)For purposes of this section, “telephone company” is defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 638.
(d)Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
186
cases (
130 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case:
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020).
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “The district court dismissed the UCL claim and a portion of the CIPA claim, but it declined to dismiss the ECPA claim and the portion of the CIPA claim alleging interception and use of communications in violation of California Penal Code section 631. The district court also…”
United States v. Clara Bell Hall, 543 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1977).
· cites it 7× “Hall’s Argument Hall argues that the wire interception involved here was unlawful under California Penal Code § 631, that the use by state officers of information obtained by the wiretap was also in violation of the statute, and thus that the arrest and seizure, as fruits of the…”
Ribas v. Clark, 696 P.2d 637 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Although the arbitrator ruled in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff subsequently filed this action against defendant Clark seeking damages for violations of criminal statutes prohibiting various forms of eavesdropping (Pen. Code, §§ 631, subd. (a), and 637), as well as for invasion of…”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 5 60-120 (1997); Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 631 (West 1999); Colo.”
Drickey Jackson v. Amzn, 65 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Rather, it claimed violations of state and federal laws: the California Invasion of Privacy Act ( Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 , 635); invasion of privacy under California’s Constitution; the Federal Wiretap Act for the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic…”
Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal. App. 3d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Penal Code section 631 provides: "Any person who, by means of any .”
Brandon Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “As for personal jurisdiction, the district court first noted that Briskin did not argue that the court has general personal jurisdiction over any of the three Shopify 7 Specifically, the SAC alleges claims for invasion of privacy in violation of the California Invasion of…”
Smith v. Facebook, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 2× “¶¶ 249-94), the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 (a), 682 (id.. ¶¶ 305-21), and privacy protections under the California Constitution (id.”
In Re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consum. Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2015).
“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…”
In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“Section 631 of CIPA makes it unlawful to use “any machine, instrument or contrivance” to intentionally intercept the content of a communication over any “telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable or instrument,” or to read, attempt to read, or learn the “contents or meaning of…”
Commonwealth v. Bennett, 369 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The evidence was suppressed and the Court in Jones upheld the suppression under the California Penal Code, § 631, which is identical to §§ 5702 and 5703.”
Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP, 193 Cal. App. 4th 435 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“) Gerbosi’s complaint alleges the following causes of action as to all defendants: unlawful wiretapping (Pen. Code, § 631); unlawful eavesdropping (Pen.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 631(a) — 41 cases
Brandon Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025).
“As for personal jurisdiction, the district court first noted that Briskin did not argue that the court has general personal jurisdiction over any of the three Shopify 7 Specifically, the SAC alleges claims for invasion of privacy in violation of the California Invasion of…”
In Re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consum. Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2015).
“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…”
In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
“Section 631 of CIPA makes it unlawful to use “any machine, instrument or contrivance” to intentionally intercept the content of a communication over any “telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable or instrument,” or to read, attempt to read, or learn the “contents or meaning of…”
— Cal. Penal Code § 631(a)(4) — 1 case
— Cal. Penal Code § 631(c) — 1 case
United States v. Clara Bell Hall, 543 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1977).
“Hall’s Argument Hall argues that the wire interception involved here was unlawful under California Penal Code § 631, that the use by state officers of information obtained by the wiretap was also in violation of the statute, and thus that the arrest and seizure, as fruits of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.