The Wisconsin Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between private tech surveillance and government search powers, ruling that Google acted within the law when it flagged child sexual abuse images found in a user’s cloud account.
In a unanimous decision, the court concluded that Google’s automated detection and reporting of illicit material did not amount to a government search under the Fourth Amendment. The case centered on Andreas Rauch Sharak, who argued that the company’s review of his Google Photos files amounted to an unconstitutional warrantless search.
The justices disagreed.
Google’s systems identified four files in Rauch Sharak’s account in 2021 and reported them to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a congressionally mandated clearinghouse for child exploitation tips. The organization then relayed the information to state authorities. Acting on that lead, investigators obtained a warrant, searched Rauch Sharak’s phone, and uncovered the images. He was subsequently charged with 15 counts of possession of child sexual abuse material.
At the heart of the dispute was whether Google, by scanning and flagging the files, had effectively become an arm of the government. If so, its actions could have triggered constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
But the court saw a clear sequence: Google acted first, on its own initiative and under its own content-monitoring policies. The government entered the picture only afterward.
“The government became involved only after Google scanned, opened, and viewed the files,” the ruling noted, emphasizing the absence of state direction or participation at the time of the initial review. That separation, the court reasoned, meant the tech giant was not functioning as a government agent.
The decision reinforces a legal boundary that has grown increasingly significant in the digital era: when private platforms police their own ecosystems for illegal content, their actions do not automatically transform into state conduct subject to constitutional scrutiny.
For now, at least in Wisconsin, the message is unmistakable — cloud storage may feel personal, but when private companies enforce their rules, the Constitution does not always follow.
