hacking

Subscribe to hacking via RSS

An Illinois federal court recently found in the favor of the defendant on a plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because the plaintiff allegedly failed to satisfy the statute’s $5,000 damages threshold.

The plaintiff, a computer consulting servicing company which spent time restoring its client’s computer network (a Chicago law firm) after it was allegedly hacked by the plaintiff’s …
Continue Reading No Damages? Illinois Federal Court Tosses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claim Alleging Hacking of Law Firm Network

By Misty Blair

You may recall that hopes were high this summer that the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 would become law, as various advocacy groups attempted to reach compromises on the most controversial portions of the bill, resulting in it being revised to address those groups’ concerns. Then, on August 2nd, the Senate voted 52-46 (largely along party lines) against…
Continue Reading Cybersecurity Act of 2012 Dies Again in the Senate

On October 10, 2012, the Supreme Court of South Carolina found in Jennings v. Jennings, et al., that a defendant who allegedly hacked into a plaintiff’s personal e-mail account to retrieve messages that were already read by the plaintiff was not liable under the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701.

The Defendant allegedly hacked into plaintiff’s Yahoo!
Continue Reading Hacking Into Personal E-Mail Account Not a Violation of the Stored Communications Act According to South Carolina Supreme Court

By Joshua Salinas and Jessica Mendelson

A federal district court for the Northern District of California recently held in a “competitor click fraud” case that a mere assertion of a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim without sufficient factual details regarding any inside or outside “hacking” is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (…
Continue Reading “Click Fraud” Allegations Found Insufficient Under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, But Personal Jurisdiction Found Where Defendant Company’s Website Deliberately Targeted Consumers Within the Forum State