On appeal I suspect it will be pointed out that, unlike cases where the ECPA applies, in this case Google isn't a third party intercepting the e-mail but is acting at the request of, and under a contract with, the recipient to handle their e-mail. The parallel would be a secretary reading and sorting your mail, possibly handling some of it herself, collecting some of it and summarizing related items so you don't have to read all of them individually, and handing you the stuff you really need to handle with notes attached to help you. The secretary, like Google, isn't a third party, she's your agent, and the ECPA doesn't say you can't have an agent handle your e-mail for you.
Because she's a news anchor. Part of her job is supposed to be recognizing how her audience is likely to react to a story and it's presentation and making that presentation as attractive to viewers as possible. And she went with this, something that even a few moments' thought should've told her would upset a lot of people. She not only biffed it, she biffed a basic part of her job.
I think here the issue isn't confusion, it's that Hanson's deliberately taking advantage of the Craigslist name to advance his own business. He's deliberately made his name similar enough that anyone seeing it will automatically think of Craigslist, and that recognition's going to carry over to his benefit. That's exacerbated by the fact that his business is deliberately aimed at Craigslist customers who're already primed to make the association by dealing with the name he's trying to imitate. The combination is what makes Craigslist's case here.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by TKnarr.