975 F. Supp. 2d 1191
D. Or.2013Background
- Plaintiff sues for CFAA violation, defamation, negligent supervision, and parental liability under Oregon law.
- Defendants allegedly created social media accounts using plaintiff’s name and likeness and invited students to engage with them.
- Plaintiff alleges publication of false and defamatory statements and images about him via the forged accounts.
- Court actions: Hill moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; S.A. seeks limited judgment and injunction; magistrate issued F&Rs.
- District court reviews de novo as no objections were filed; grants Hill’s motion and denies SA’s motion consistent with the opinion.
- CFAA analysis focuses on whether defendants acted without authorization or exceeded authorization per 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFAA 'without authorization' applies when use violates terms of service | Plaintiff asserts access without authorization via forged accounts breaches social media licenses. | Defendants argue 'without authorization' and 'exceeds authorized access' are not triggered by use violations of terms of service. | CFAA claim barred; use restrictions on access do not constitute without authorization. |
| Whether 'exceeds authorized access' applies to social media use under Nosal | Plaintiff claims creation of accounts under his name violated authorized access. | Defendants contend Nosal limits 'exceeds authorized access' to inside hackers who access unauthorized data, not license violations. | Nosal narrows application; the conduct here does not meet 'exceeds authorized access' under the Act. |
| Whether the rule of lenity precludes CFAA application | Plaintiff argues broad application of CFAA to create liability for false social media profiles. | Defendants urge strict construction of criminal statutes to avoid unintended criminalization. | Rule of lenity precludes applying CFAA to create false profiles under these facts. |
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists to adjudicate the remaining claims | Plaintiff seeks federal coverage via CFAA; RICO contemplated as alternative. | Without CFAA, there is no federal question; RICO lacks plausible predicate acts here; supplemental jurisdiction unlikely. | Federal claims fail; case should be dismissed; no remand to state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (authorization interpreted narrowly; 'without authorization' requires no permission or rescinded permission)
- United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) (limits 'exceeds authorized access' to information; disfavors using CFAA to police use restrictions)
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2003) (trespass concepts discussed in CFAA context; informs narrow reading of authorization)