Lime Crunch Inc. v. Johansen, 1:20-cv-05709

Matthew Hanni owns Lime Crunch, Inc. and Now Marketing Services, Inc.; Christopher Johansen was a commissioned salesman who used a company email (cjohansen@nowms.com) and a company laptop.
After a bad breakup, Johansen sent marketing emails from his personal Gmail to ~102 contacts, including addresses hosted on Plaintiffs' servers; he also sent additional blasts and holiday messages.
Johansen's company email credentials were revoked but his devices continued to auto-attempt connections to Now Marketing's email server (thousands of "pings" alleged); Plaintiffs contend some attempts occurred but provide limited logs.
Plaintiffs produced minimal documentary evidence of harm: some small hosting/subscription invoices billed to Hanni and no invoices or time records from Now Marketing documenting remediation costs.
Hanni submitted a declaration estimating labor and security costs (hourly labor totals and subscription purchases) but provided no contemporaneous time records, invoices, or detailed evidence tying costs to the alleged conduct.
Procedural posture: Johansen moved for summary judgment; the court granted it, finding Plaintiffs failed to establish standing under the CAN-SPAM Act and the CFAA due to insufficient evidence of statutory harms and damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
CAN-SPAM standing: IAS status and whether plaintiff was "adversely affected"	Lime Crunch says it qualifies as an Internet Access Service (IAS) and was adversely affected by a pattern/practice of commercial emails (missing opt-out/address) that forced remediation	Johansen says Lime Crunch failed to establish IAS status and showed only ordinary, negligible spam burdens, not the concrete harms Congress intended	Court: Summary judgment for defendant; Lime Crunch failed to show IAS status or adverse effects beyond ordinary spam
CFAA damages threshold ($5,000 loss)	Now Marketing (Hanni) claims attempted unauthorized access required ongoing remediation and labor (> $5,000), plus security expenditures	Johansen says access was not achieved, attacks were blocked, and Plaintiffs produced no invoices, time logs, or other admissible proof of $5,000+ loss	Court: Summary judgment for defendant; Now Marketing failed to present admissible evidence of compensable loss meeting the CFAA threshold
Whether attempted access alone supports a CFAA private action	Now Marketing contends attempts constitute unauthorized access sufficient for liability	Johansen disputes; argues no access and no damage	Court: Declined to decide; dismissed claims on the independent basis that Plaintiffs failed to prove the statutory loss/damage elements

Bennington v. Caterpillar Inc., 275 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2001) (summary-judgment evidence and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAN-SPAM: IAS provider and "adversely affected" interpretation)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must show specific facts to create genuine issue)
Life Plans, Inc. v. Security Life of Denver Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2015) (nonmoving party must prove every essential element)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (affidavits and evidentiary requirements on summary judgment)
ExactLogix, Inc. v. JobProgress, 508 F. Supp. 3d 254 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (CFAA "loss" interpreted as reasonable costs to victim to address or remedy violation)
Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Auto Club Group, 823 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (CFAA damages limited to computer-related expenditures)