(a)Every person who manufactures, assembles, sells, offers for sale, advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or furnishes to another any device which is primarily or exclusively designed or intended for eavesdropping upon the communication of another, or any device which is primarily or exclusively designed or intended for the unauthorized interception or reception of communications between cellular radio telephones or between a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone in violation of Section 632.5, or communications between cordless telephones or between a cordless telephone and a landline telephone in violation of Section 632.6, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)This section does not apply to either of the following:
(1)An act otherwise prohibited by this section when performed by any of the following:
(A)A communication utility or an officer, employee or agent thereof for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of, or otherwise incident to the use of, the services or facilities of the utility.
(B)A state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or an agency of the federal government.
(C)A person engaged in selling devices specified in subdivision (a) for use by, or resale to, agencies of a foreign government under terms approved by the federal government, communication utilities, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies, or agencies of the federal government.
(2)Possession by a subscriber to communication utility service of a device specified in subdivision (a) furnished by the utility pursuant to its tariffs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case:
Drickey Jackson v. Amzn, 65 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023).
Drickey Jackson v. Amzn, 65 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 631 ; (2) Invasion of privacy in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 635 ; (3) Intrusion upon seclusion; (4) Invasion of privacy in violation of California’s Constitution; (5) Violation of the Federal Wiretap Act for the…”
Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 209 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Although Alfaro appears also to allege causes of action for violation of Cal.Penal Code § 635, which criminalizes the possession of eavesdropping equipment, and Cal.”
Graham v. Noom, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
· cites it 4× “com, and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded 6 by FullStory.”
Drickey Jackson v. Amzn (9th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 631 ; (2) Invasion of privacy in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 635 ; (3) Intrusion upon seclusion; (4) Invasion of privacy in violation of California’s Constitution; (5) Violation of the Federal Wiretap Act for the…”
Johnson v. Blue Nile, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“Penal 12 Code § 631(a); (2) the sale of eavesdropping software, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 635 (a); 13 and (3) invasion of privacy under California’s Constitution.”
Yale v. The Gap, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“10 Penal Code § 635(a); and (3) invasion of privacy in violation of California’s Constitution.”
Smith v. Google, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2024).
“Count III: California Invasion of Privacy Act ( Cal. Penal Code § 635 ) 2 Section 635 of the California Penal Code makes punishable anyone who “manufactures, 3 assembles, sells, offers for sale, advertises for sale, possesses, transports, imports, or furnishes to 4 another any…”
Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021).
“Code § 631 ; 2) violation of 21 the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code § 635 ; 3) intrusion upon seclusion; 22 and 4) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 635(a) — 3 cases
Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 209 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000).
“Although Alfaro appears also to allege causes of action for violation of Cal.Penal Code § 635, which criminalizes the possession of eavesdropping equipment, and Cal.”
Graham v. Noom, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“com, and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded 6 by FullStory.”
Yale v. The Gap, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).
“10 Penal Code § 635(a); and (3) invasion of privacy in violation of California’s Constitution.”
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.