Last month we blogged about a district court for the Northern District of California that distinguished the Ninth Circuit’s recent U.S. v. Nosal decision and allowed an employer to bring a counterclaim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against a former employee for alleged violations of a verbal computer access restriction. (Weingand v. Harland Financial Solutions,
Continue Reading Update: California Federal District Court Reaffirms that Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claims are Available for Violations of Employers’ “Access Restrictions” Despite Ninth Circuit’s Nosal Decision
exceeds authorization
Outside Counsel Fees May Be a Qualified Loss to Meet the CFAA’s $5000 Jurisdictional Requirement
By Robert B. Milligan on
Posted in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) requires, among other things, that a plaintiff demonstrate a “loss” of $5,000 or more. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I).
In Animators at Law, Inc. v. Capital Legal Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-CV-1341 E.D.Va. (May 10, 2011) (unpublished) (TSE) two former employees of Animators’ abruptly left to join…
Continue Reading Outside Counsel Fees May Be a Qualified Loss to Meet the CFAA’s $5000 Jurisdictional Requirement
The Eleventh Circuit Splits with the Ninth Circuit in Interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
By Paul E. Freehling on
Posted in Trade Secrets
By Paul Freehling and Scott Schaefers
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ December 27, 2010 decision in U.S. v. Rodriguez, Appeal No. 09-15265, — F.3d –, 2010 WL 5253231 (11th Cir. Dec. 27, 2010) may mark a significant split among the federal appellate circuits over the meaning of the phrases “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” under the federal…
Continue Reading The Eleventh Circuit Splits with the Ninth Circuit in Interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act