Skip to content

Menu

Seyfarth Shaw LLP logo
HomeAboutAuthorsResources
Search
Close

Trading Secrets

A Law Blog on Trade Secrets, Non-Competes, and Computer Fraud

Home » Whatever Happened to Detention? Principal Sues Students Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act For Allegedly Creating Fake Social Media Account

Whatever Happened to Detention? Principal Sues Students Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act For Allegedly Creating Fake Social Media Account

By Jessica Mendelson on October 25, 2013
Posted in Computer Fraud, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

As social media becomes more engrained in our lives, we hear more and more about its use among students.  Although some of these uses are perfectly legitimate, others, such as the use of social media for bullying or defamatory purposes, are not.  In a recent case in Oregon, Matot v. CH et al, the court addressed the question of whether the “subject of a fake social media account” could successfully claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against the creators of the fake profile. The court  answered the question with a resounding “No.”

Recently, students at a Oregon high school allegedly created a fake social media account for the school’s principal and allegedly began posting obscene materials on this page.  Mr. Matot filed suit against both the students and their parents, alleging defamation and negligent supervision, as well as a violation of the CFAA.  According to the principal, in allegedly creating these postings, the defendant students had allegedly used school computers in a manner which “exceeded authorized access” under the CFAA.

The federal district judge in Oregon, however, found otherwise, and held that there was no violation of the CFAA.  In determining this, the court first addressed LVRC Holdings L.L.C. v. Brekka,, a Ninth Circuit case, where  the court found that an employee’s misuse or misappropriation of an employer’s confidential or proprietary information is not “without authorization” as long as the employer has given permission to the employee to access this information.  Here, unlike in Brekka, the defendants were not employees of the social media sites, and instead, their relationship with the website was entirely based on an alleged forgery.  The court next addressed the  United States v. Nosal case, where the Ninth Circuit previously held that lying on social media websites was common, and declined to recognize this as a CFAA violation. 

Ultimately, the court in Matot concluded that the term authorization has been narrowly interpreted under Ninth Circuit law, and any ambiguity concerning criminal statutes should “be resolved in favor of lenity.”  Here, if the court were to consider lying on social media websites a violation of the CFAA, millions of people could be charged with violations of this statute, including law enforcement officials. As such, the court found dismissal of this claim was proper. Furthermore, the court denied leave to add a RICO claim, finding, “Congress did not intend to target the misguided attempts at retribution by juvenile middle school students against an assistant principal in enacting RICO.”

Interestingly, as Venkat Balasubramani  points out on the Technology and Marketing blog, the court failed to address the question of whether the principal actually had standing to pursue the claim.  According to Balasubramani, civil claims under the CFAA can only be pursued where a computer is accessed without authorization and the principal failed to show the students lacked such authorization.  Additionally, he points out that the court did not address the impact of the students’ First Amendment Rights, if any, or whether their parents could actually be held liable.

Based on this case and some other rulings in the Ninth Circuit, creating a fake social media profile, on its own, cannot be the basis for a CFAA claim, at least for now apparently.

Tags: fake social media account, oregon, privacy
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
DOJ Announces It Will Not Charge CFAA Violations for Good-Faith Security Research
June 28, 2022
Upcoming Webinar! 2021 Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Year in Review
January 13, 2022
Upcoming Webinar! Trade Secrets & Non-Competes 2020 Year in Review
January 12, 2021
FTC’s Crackdown on Non-Competes
Defend Trade Secrets Act
Federal Non-Compete Legislation Update
State Non-Compete Legislation Update
The Legal 500 – The Clients Guide to Law Firms

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • NLRB to Release Memo Clarifying Impact of McLaren Macombs on Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Restrictions
  • FTC Extends Public Comment Deadline on Proposed Rule Banning Employment Non-Competes Until April 19th
  • NLRB Targets Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions
  • Federal Court Awards Company Only $1.00 in Damages in Misappropriation Case against Former Employee
  • Computers on Wheels: One OEM Settles Claims While Another Scores a Win in Cases Involving Allegedly Botched OTA Updates
Seyfarth Shaw LLP logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Privacy PolicyAttorney Advertising

About Seyfarth's Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Team

Seyfarth’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud, & Non-Competes practice group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP offers services relating to corporate espionage, trade secrets litigation, non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants, electronic information protection, audits, and various other protection policies, with offices nationwide.

Copyright © 2023, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo