Category Archives: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

            As readers of this blog know, there is a split among federal courts over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).  Some courts, like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast, believe that the law is narrow and only imposes criminal and civil liability for “hackers,” people [...]

            As regular readers of this blog know, the courts are split over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), in particular whether the CFAA should apply only to “hackers,” those who truly break into a computer system, or to those who misuse someone else’s data that they lawfully accessed as well.  In a recent [...]

            I’ve written many times about the significant split in circuit courts’ interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which affects whether an employer can sue an employee for violating computer use restrictions, usually embodied in a confidentiality agreement or company IT policy, when an employee downloads confidential information he is permitted to [...]

During this past fall and much of the winter, I was serving as a Special Assistant District Attorney in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, which didn’t give me much time to blog. So, to steal a technique that John Marsh uses every week to supplement his excellent posts on the Trade Secret Litigator blog, here are some short discussions of [...]

Back in November, I wrote about how a plaintiff in a lawsuit involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) decided to appeal its case to the Supreme Court.  I explained that the CFAA is interpreted differently by the different federal circuit courts; depending on what state you are in, you might get a different [...]

I have written much on this blog about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and the split among the federal circuit courts of appeals over how it should be interpreted.  (See my prior posts here.)  The issue being debated among the circuits is whether CFAA claims should only be permitted against an employee who “hacks” [...]

BNA has published a good article by David A. McManus, Prashanth Jayachandran, and Jason Burns on how an employer can protect its confidential information from being taken by a departing employee to a competitor.  The key is to have a plan.  Some of their more interesting points include: In addition to having certain employees sign non-disclosure agreements, an [...]

Law360 reported yesterday that, with the Solicitor General’s decision not to seek Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Nosal, “whether an employer can bring [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] claims against employees who steal company data in violation of computer usage policies depends on where the employer can file suit.”  I anticipated this would be the case back in April.  [...]

A recent case from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire highlights the split between the District of New Hampshire and the District of Massachusetts over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, in particular the phrase “exceeds authorized access.”  Under various provisions of the CFAA, an individual can [...]

One issue I’ve written about here and here is the split among the federal circuit courts regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) as it applies to employees who steal their employers’ confidential information.  The Ninth Circuit takes a narrow view, saying that the CFAA only applies to employees when “hacking” is [...]

I’m quoted in this week’s edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in an article that discusses the differences between Ninth Circuit and First Circuit case law interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  (The First Circuit includes Massachusetts.)  The article also explains how this circuit split affects claims against employees who take confidential information from their former employers.  The article [...]

My article on the recent Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. Nosal, a case concerning the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that has created a split in the case law with the First Circuit, appears in this month’s Massachusetts Lawyers Journal.  The circuit split affects claims by employers against former employees for theft of confidential information.  [...]

Below is an article that I wrote for the June edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Journal, the monthly publication of the Massachusetts Bar Association. It discusses an important case that interprets the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the split in the law that case has created with the First Circuit, which includes Massachusetts. The U.S. District Court for the District [...]

My colleague Daniel Marx has written an excellent summary and analysis of United States v. Aleynikov, a Second Circuit decision that affects interpretations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, National Stolen Property Act, and Economic Espionage Act.  It is available on our Security, Privacy and the Law Blog.  Importantly, as Dan explains, the district court’s narrow [...]