Examining the Global Impact of AI + Cyber + Data + Privacy + Law = Business Risk
Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013) (3rd Cir.) The only allegation of direct wrongdoing in the Complaint was insufficient to state a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against the defendants: “Defendants intentionally accessed Mu Sigma’s protected computer without authorization … in violation of [18] U.S.C. § 1030(a) (5).” Needless …
Continue reading “Mu Sigma, Inc. v. Affine, Inc., 2013 WL 3772724 (D.N.J. July 17, 2013)”
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Feldstein, et al., 2013 WL 2666746 (D. Mass. June 10, 2013) (1st Cir.) The court acknowledges that it is unclear whether the First Circuit follows the narrow access means access theory or the broader intended use theory but chooses to applythe narrow. Under this theory, it finds plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to …
Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013) (4th Cir.) Sprint alleged the defendants committed these acts in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: (1) trafficked in confidential codes through which individuals could gainaccess to Sprint’s network (§ 1030(a)(6)); (2) intentionally accessed Sprint’s protected network without …
Continue reading “Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Simple Cell, Inc., 2013 WL 3776933 (D. Md. July 17, 2013)”
Mission Information Resources, Inc. v. Hult, 2013 WL 3776442 (D.N.H. July 17, 2013) (1st Cir.) Defendant’s argument for dismissal may “depend on an erroneously stringent view of federal pleading requirements (e.g., that, at the pleading stage, MIR needs to ‘identify [the] files, programs, folders and systems’ that Hult allegedly deleted from his MIR-issued laptop in order to state …
AirWatch LLC v. Mobile Iron, Inc., 2013 WL 4757491 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 4, 2013) (11th Cir.) The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act may form the predicate for unlawful conduct under the California Unfair Competition Law.
Wentworth-Douglass Hosp. v. Young & Novis Prof’l Ass’n, No. 10-CV-120-SM, 2012 WL 2522963, at *4 (D.N.H. June 29, 2012) (1st Cir.) “[S]imply denominating limitations as ‘access restrictions’ does not convert what is otherwise a use policy into an access restriction.”
Spam Arrest, LLC v. Replacements, Ltd., 2013 WL 4675919 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 29, 2013) (9th Cir) Where plaintiff gave authorization to access its computers to anyone for the purpose of sending emails, even if a sender completes the verification process by falsely indicating that the email she sends is not spam, under the Ninth Circuit’s narrow interpretation …
Continue reading “Spam Arrest, LLC v. Replacements, Ltd., 2013 WL 4675919 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 29, 2013)”
Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 2013 WL 3810859 (E.D. Penn. July 23, 2013) (3rd Cir) The Third Circuit has not yet ruled on whether it will adopt the broad (Johns / Rodriguez) or narrow (Nosal / WEC Carolina Energy) interpretation of access, but the courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have generally adopted the narrow …
Continue reading “Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones, 2013 WL 3810859 (E.D. Penn. July 23, 2013)”
Higgins v. NMI Enterprises, Inc., 2013 WL 4525635 (ED La. Aug. 26, 2013) (5th Cir.) The two year statute of limitations for Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim began to run when the plaintiff had an awareness of an unauthorized access into its computer system even if the plaintiff did not know the identity of …
Continue reading “Higgins v. NMI Enterprises, Inc., 2013 WL 4525635 (ED La. Aug. 26, 2013)”
Dalzell Management Co., Inc. v. Bardonia Plaza, LLC, 923 F. Supp.2d 590 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013) (2nd Cir) This is an interesting case where there are two lawsuits, one state and one federal, and the Defendants moved to dismiss the federal (alleging the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim) based on the Colorado River Abstention …
You must be logged in to post a comment.