Blogs

Former Employee Had Valid Access, Not Guilty of Violating Federal & State Laws

02.07.14

“When a former employee uses a customer’s working log-in credentials to access his former employer’s scripts, are he and the customer hackers?” No ruled a federal court which denied that the defendants violated the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California Computer Data Access And Fraud Act (CDAFA).

In January 2013 US Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal (Northern District of California, San Jose) ruled in Enki Corporation v. Freedman et al, that Enki failed to properly allege a violation of the CFAA:

Because Enki’s complaint fails to allege that Defendants had no access rights to Enki’s scripts, and indeed the documents upon which it relies reveal that Defendants had certain access rights, their CFAA claim must be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.

The claim of violation of the CDAFA was dismissed by Magistrate Judge Grewal since Enki’s complaint failed to allege that the defendants “overcame any technical barrier in order to view and copy its proprietary information.”

However the case is not over since Enki also alleged violation of other California laws and Enki has until February 23, 2014 to amend its complaint to better allege violations of the CFAA and CDAFA.

Computerworld reported courts around the US are not uniform in ruling on violations of the CFAA, so ultimately perhaps the US Supreme will consider the CFAA or Congress may modify the law.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top