Be Careful of Commentary on 7th Cir.’s Fidlar Tech CFAA “Intent to Defraud”Case

I have read several blog posts that are stating, as a blanket proposition, that you must prove intent to defraud for CFAA claims. This, they say, comes from the recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, Fidlar Technologies v. LPS Real Estate Data Solutions, Inc., 2016 WL 258632 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) (opinion). This is …

Court Order Provides CFAA Authorization to Access Computer, Even if Later Overturned

A party who accesses a computer pursuant to a court order authorizing him to seize and access the computer will not be found in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if such order is later overturned. “An essential element of a CFAA claim under 10 U.S.C. § 1030 is that the [defendant] accesses a …

Would increasing CFAA penalties via the CISA Amendment really even help? I don’t think so.

As the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) is making its way through the Senate, it has stirred up more controversy with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s proposed amendment to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), that he argues, would give law enforcement more tools to fight hackers. The Amendment would provide for increased sentences (up to …

Fifth Circuit: Accessing Computer Per Later-Overturned Order Does Not Violate CFAA

In Land and Bay Gauging L.L.C. v. Shor, –Fed.Appx — (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2015), the Fifth Circuit recently held that accessing a computer under the authority of a court order that authorizes the access is sufficient to render the access as being authorized, even if the order is later overturned. An essential element under …

The CFAA Requires Access of a Computer — Not Just Access to Information

To have a valid CFAA claim, there must be an access to a computer. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is often referred to as an “access crime” because the act that is prohibited is accessing a computer. Misusing information that someone else obtained from a computer is not accessing a computer. Doing so may …

Using Single Individual Password to Access News Site to Share Info With Others is Not CFAA Interruption of Service

A person’s use of his single individual use password to access a news site to access content that he then shared with over 100 other people did not cause any impairment to the integrity or availability of data or loss due to interruption of service as required to bring a civil claim under the Computer Fraud …

Employers Receive Friendly Computer-Fraud-And-Abuse-Act Ruling From Louisiana Court

The U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana recently sided with employers in the on-going judicial debate over interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “CFAA”. See Associated Pump & Supply Co., LLC v. Dupre, et al., No. 14-0009 E.D. La.. Associated Pump sued its former employee Kevin Dupre for violating CFAA during his alleged scheme to steal Associated Pump’s trade …

US v. Nosal Court Orders Restitution of $827,983.25

On April 24, 2013, a jury convicted Defendant David Nosal of three counts of computer fraud in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act “CFAA”, 18 U.S.C. § 1030a4, two counts of unauthorized downloading, copying, and duplicating of trade secrets without authorization, in violation of the Economic Espionage Act “EEA”, 18 U.S.C. § 1832a2, …

Lack of $5k Loss Leads to Dismissal of CFAA Claim Against Ex-Spouse for Surreptitious Computer Monitoring

In Morgan v. Preston, 2013 WL 5963563 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 7 2013), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim brought by one ex-spouse against the other. The basis for the CFAA claim was, following their separation and filing for divorce, the one spouse had installed Spector Pro …

Using Photos from Facebook Page Without Express Permission Does Not Violate CFAA

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 …