The Impact Of The Narrowed Scope Of CFAA Liability In The Privacy And Security Realm

SM
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton

Contributor

Sheppard Mullin is a full service Global 100 firm with over 1,000 attorneys in 16 offices located in the United States, Europe and Asia. Since 1927, companies have turned to Sheppard Mullin to handle corporate and technology matters, high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the US, the firm’s clients include more than half of the Fortune 100.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Van Buren addressed the meaning of the term "exceeds authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
United States Privacy

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Van Buren addressed the meaning of the term "exceeds authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The Court held, in a criminal case that alleged that the person used information for an improper purpose, that the law's definition of this term does not include situations when people have improper motives for obtaining computerized information they are otherwise authorized to access.

As  we outlined in our sister blog, the Court found that individuals "exceed authorized access" only if they obtain files or folders that should have been off limits. In the particular case, authority was not exceeded because the individual was authorized to retrieve the information in question. Although Van Buren  was a criminal case, the structure of CFAA strongly suggests that the Supreme Court's holding will apply in civil cases as well, where controlling decisions in the First, Fifth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits held the "exceeds authorized access" clause applies to those who misuse their authorized access.

The CFAA has often been used in data privacy and security lawsuits, where companies argue that there is "unauthorized access" under the CFAA because an individual does not comply with terms of service, computer use policies, or other documents requiring privacy and security protections. This "improper purpose" theory will be eliminated if lower courts apply Van Buren's  holding to criminal and civil cases alike.

Putting It Into Practice: This case may eliminate a potential cause of action if an individual acts improperly by misusing personal information or failing to protect it as required by law. That does not mean, however, that companies should necessarily strike such requirements from their policies and terms. CFAA is not the only cause of action that can be brought, and making expectations clear in terms can help guide behavior. This decision does, though, remind companies to think about who has (or should have) access to what systems and to regularly audit and update access rights as people's roles change.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More