Examining the Global Impact of AI + Cyber + Data + Privacy + Law = Business Risk
In Miranda Tan and Hassan Miah v. John Doe, 14-CV-2663 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2014), the court held that defendant’s use of photographs from the plaintiff’s Facebook page, without express permission, did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court gave three reasons: plaintiffs did not allege (1) what “protected computer” was alleged accessed …
Continue reading “Using Photos from Facebook Page Without Express Permission Does Not Violate CFAA”
Court’s dicta reaffirms that use of spyware can violate the CFAA and ECPA In footnote 34 of Tharpe v. Lawidjaja, 2014 WL 1268820 (W.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2014), the court cites an unpublished opinion of the Fourth Circuit and states: “As Defendant acknowledges, the installation and use of spyware is potentially a criminal act. See, e.g., United States …
Pinnacle Ins. Solutions, LLC v. Kolbe, 2014 WL 1272212 (D. N.J. Mar. 27, 2014) Federal court abstains from hearing CFAA case in favor of parallel state court proceeding Company insider is accused of passing sensitive information to competitor, directing potential clients away from employer and impugning employer’s reputation. Insider resigns. Former employer sued in state …
Continue reading “Pinnacle Ins. Solutions, LLC v. Kolbe, 2014 WL 1272212 (D. N.J. Mar. 27, 2014)”
New South Equipment Mats, LLC v. Keener, 2013 WL 5946371 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 5, 2013) When is “damage” an essential element of a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation? “Damage” to a computer is an essential element to any Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5): (A) knowingly causes the …
Case: Absolute Energy Solutions, LLC v. Trosclair, 2014 WL 360503 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2014) Disputed issue of whether access was authorized for CFAA claim cannot be decided on motion to dismiss. Access Principles Motion to dismiss Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim arguing that plaintiff’s allegations that defendants were not authorized to access plaintiff’s computers …
Deman Data Systems, LLC v. Schessel, 2014 WL 408443 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2014) How far does a CFAA claim’s supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims extend? A federal court has non-exclusive federal question subject matter jurisdiction over 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims and supplemental jurisdiction over all state claims which …
Continue reading “Deman Data Systems, LLC v. Schessel, 2014 WL 408443 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2014)”
Dice Corporation v. Bold Technologies, 12-2513, 13-1712 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2014) Summary Does a person violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing a remote computer without authorization if he is not aware that he is even accessing that remote computer? The Sixth Circuit says no. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act prohibits …
Continue reading “Dice Corporation v. Bold Technologies, 12-2513, 13-1712 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2014)”
Envisn, Inc. v. Davis, 2013 WL 6571944 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2013) Former employer (plaintiff) sued former employee who downloaded the company’s proprietary software and confidential information to her home computer just before resigning her employment. Plaintiff sued for violation of § 1030(a)(4) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which prohibits one from “knowingly and …
Continue reading “Envisn, Inc. v. Davis, 2013 WL 6571944 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2013)”
Brooks v. AM Resorts, LLC, 2013 WL 3343993 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2013) An employee was fired from his job and several months later the employer revealed that it had been receiving privileged emails between the former employee and his attorney concerning the firing. Employee sued for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, inter …
Continue reading “Brooks v. AM Resorts, LLC, 2013 WL 3343993 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2013)”
United States v. Nosal, 930 F. Supp.2d 1051 (N.D. Ca. Mar. 12, 2013) (9th Cir) This is another in the saga of Nosal cases, this time an Order Denying the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the charges against the defendant for aiding and abetting his co-conspirators. These charges were brought subsequent to the Nosal I and Nosal II cases and …
Continue reading “United States v. Nosal, 930 F. Supp.2d 1051 (N.D. Ca. Mar. 12, 2013)”
You must be logged in to post a comment.