Fidlar Technologies v. LPS Real Estate Data Solutions, Inc.
810 F.3d 1075
7th Cir.2016Background
- Fidlar provides the Laredo system (client, middle tier, county databases) that gives counties and subscribers remote access to digitized land records; access is governed by county contracts and a Laredo EULA.
- LPS contracted with 82 Fidlar-hosted counties for unlimited time-based access; some counties separately charged per-print (copy) fees that LPS’s unlimited subscriptions did not cover.
- LPS built a "web-harvester" that replicated unencrypted SOAP calls to the middle tier to bulk-download images (and save them), did not send Laredo’s tracking/print SOAP calls, and therefore avoided print fees in practice.
- LPS continued paying unlimited subscription fees, used the harvester across counties (including those without print fees), and did not alter or disrupt Fidlar’s servers or data; downloaded records were processed overseas.
- Fidlar sued under the CFAA and Illinois CCPL (and trespass to chattels); the district court granted summary judgment for LPS, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LPS violated CFAA § 1030(a)(4) (access with "intent to defraud") | LPS designed the harvester to avoid print fees and thus intentionally defrauded counties | LPS acted to acquire data efficiently, believed downloads were permitted under county agreements, and did not intend to deceive | No intent to defraud; no reasonable jury could find LPS had the specific intent to deceive |
| Whether LPS caused "damage" under CFAA § 1030(a)(5)(A) | By bypassing Laredo tracking, LPS impaired availability/integrity of the Laredo system and middle tier logs | LPS did not alter or impair servers or data; it only avoided creating tracking entries—no disruption of service | No damage: mere failure to generate tracking logs is not impairment of a protected computer |
| Whether LPS violated Illinois CCPL (inserting a program that would/might cause loss) | LPS knowingly caused loss to counties by avoiding print fees via the harvester | LPS did not know (and lacked reason to know) that downloads were impermissible or would cause loss; it paid subscription fees and believed downloads were allowed | No liability under CCPL: no intent or knowledge that its conduct would or might cause loss |
Key Cases Cited
- Bunn v. Khoury Enters., Inc., 753 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- United States v. Pust, 798 F.3d 597 (7th Cir.) (intent to defraud requires willful specific intent to deceive or cheat)
- United States v. Paneras, 222 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.) (definition of intent to defraud)
- Int'l Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir.) (CFAA focused on actual impairments to integrity or availability)
- Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int'l Union, 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir.) (non-destructive flooding conduct can qualify as CFAA damage)
- United States v. Mitra, 405 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (blocking communications impaired availability—CFAA damage)
- EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp., 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.) (website provider should expressly prohibit conduct to rely on terms)
- United States v. Westerfield, 714 F.3d 480 (7th Cir.) (evidence of concealment can support intent inference)