Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, is the principal federal statute prohibiting unauthorized to protected computers, intentional damage to such systems, and related fraudulent conduct involving computers. Enacted in 1986 as an expansion of earlier targeting counterfeit access devices and basic , the CFAA defines "protected computers" broadly to encompass those used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, government systems, or . Its core provisions criminalize acts such as intentionally accessing a computer without to obtain information, commit , or cause damage, with penalties escalating based on intent, harm caused, and whether the offense involves or repeat violations. Originally designed to combat emerging threats like in the mid-1980s, the CFAA has been amended repeatedly, including expansions under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to address and further updates to cover denial-of-service attacks and distribution. It serves as a foundational tool for federal prosecutions of cybercrimes, enabling civil remedies alongside criminal penalties and facilitating international cooperation against transnational threats. However, the statute's vague terms, particularly "without authorization" and "exceeding authorized access," have sparked debates over its scope, leading to applications beyond traditional —such as against insiders misusing permitted access—which critics argue stifles legitimate activities like security research. In (2021), the narrowed the CFAA's interpretation, holding that an individual who lawfully accesses a computer but misuses the obtained does not violate the statute, thereby limiting its use for policing terms-of-service violations or policy breaches rather than true unauthorized entry. This ruling addressed long-standing concerns about overreach, though the law remains a of cybersecurity enforcement amid evolving digital threats.

History

Origins and Enactment

![Great Seal of the United States](./assets/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_obverse The origins of the (CFAA) lie in the Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 on October 12, 1984, which established the initial federal statute at 18 U.S.C. § 1030. This precursor legislation targeted unauthorized access to government computers and systems, reflecting early congressional recognition of computer-related crimes amid the proliferation of digital systems in the early . However, its narrow scope—limited primarily to protected computers used in interstate commerce for financial records or government operations—proved insufficient as incidents expanded beyond these domains. By 1986, lawmakers identified gaps in the 1984 provisions, including inadequate coverage of intentional damage to computers and trafficking in access codes, prompting amendments to broaden criminal liability for unauthorized access and fraud. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, H.R. 4718, was introduced in the 99th Congress to revise the scienter requirement from "knowingly" to "intentionally" for certain offenses, introduce new prohibitions on accessing computers to defraud or cause damage, and expand definitions to include "Federal interest computers" affecting interstate commerce. The bill passed the and an amended version passed the on October 3, 1986, before President signed it into law as 99-474 on October 16, 1986. This enactment enhanced penalties, such as up to five years imprisonment for first-time offenses involving or damage exceeding $5,000 in value, and exempted authorized activities, aiming to deter escalating threats from computer intrusions without overly burdening legitimate system users. The amendments responded directly to real-world vulnerabilities, including cases where hackers exploited systems for non-financial gain, marking a shift toward comprehensive for critical .

Key Amendments

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), originally enacted on October 27, 1986, as part of the Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, has undergone multiple amendments to address evolving technological threats and expand prosecutorial tools. One of the earliest significant changes occurred in 1994 through the Computer Abuse Amendments Act, incorporated into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322). This amendment elevated certain unauthorized transmissions of computer programs or codes—such as viruses or —to status when done knowingly and with intent to cause damage, while also introducing a private civil right of action for victims to seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies for losses exceeding $5,000 in a one-year period. These provisions aimed to deter intentional sabotage of computer systems amid rising concerns over proliferation. Further expansion came in 1996 via amendments that redefined "protected computer" to encompass any computer used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, thereby extending federal jurisdiction beyond government and to virtually all -connected systems. This shift reflected the rapid growth of the and aimed to close gaps in coverage for networks integral to commerce, though it significantly widened the statute's applicability without requiring proof of specific financial or governmental ties. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56), enacted on October 26, 2001, in response to the , markedly broadened the CFAA's damage provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5). It criminalized not only intentional access causing damage but also reckless conduct leading to impairment of medical systems, infrastructure, or other critical functions, with penalties up to 10 years imprisonment for first offenses. The act also extended extraterritorial reach to foreign-based computers affecting U.S. commerce and clarified that "loss" for sentencing could include investigative costs and response expenses, enhancing enforcement against international cyber threats. Subsequent refinements included the 2002 amendments tied to the , which reinforced penalties for trafficking in passwords or access tools, and the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of (Pub. L. 110-326), which mandated full restitution for victims—including economic losses, response costs, and —while adding offenses for conspiring to violate the CFAA and clarifying prohibitions on unauthorized access motivated by commercial gain or private advantage. These changes, particularly in , addressed limitations in prior restitution rules by broadening recoverable losses to better reflect the multifaceted harms of intrusions, such as data breaches involving . Overall, these amendments progressively transformed the CFAA from a narrow anti-hacking into a comprehensive for combating , though they have drawn scrutiny for potentially overcriminalizing minor violations due to expansive interpretations of terms like "exceeds authorized access."

Core Provisions

Definition of Protected Computers

The term "protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) as encompassing computers in three distinct categories, broadening the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's applicability beyond initial narrow targets to include systems integral to financial, governmental, commercial, and electoral functions. First, under subsection (e)(2)(A), a protected computer includes any device exclusively for the use of a or the Government, or a computer used by or for such entities where the relevant conduct affects that use; this provision originated in the Act's early formulations to safeguard banking and federal systems from unauthorized intrusions. Second, subsection (e)(2)(B) extends coverage to any computer "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication," a clause that courts have interpreted to apply to virtually all internet-connected devices within or impacting the , including those located abroad if they influence domestic commerce; this expansive language, added through amendments like the USA PATRIOT Act of , reflects Congress's intent to address the of digital networks. A third category was introduced by the Securing America's Federal Elections Act (SAFE Act), enacted as Public Law 116-179 on October 20, 2020, which amended § 1030(e)(2)(C) to classify as protected any computer that is part of a used in managing, supporting, or administering a election, provided it also affects interstate or foreign commerce; this update aimed to explicitly protect electoral amid rising concerns over threats to processes. The statutory definition does not require the computer to be owned by the government or a specific entity but hinges on its functional role in protected activities, thereby enabling prosecution of offenses involving a wide array of modern devices, from servers to networked appliances. This framework ensures that violations under the Act's prohibited conduct provisions—such as unauthorized access or damage—trigger jurisdiction when targeting these systems, with the Department of Justice emphasizing its role in combating threats like and .

Prohibited Conduct and Offenses

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, criminalizes specific acts involving to computers, intentional damage, , and related threats, primarily targeting "protected computers" that affect interstate or foreign or are used by . Subsection (a) delineates seven main offenses, each requiring elements such as intentional or knowing conduct, lack of or exceeding authorized access, and often a nexus to commerce or government functions. These provisions aim to safeguard against hacking, data theft, and cyber disruptions without broadly prohibiting legitimate security research or internal misuse absent violation of access boundaries. Under § 1030(a)(1), it is prohibited to knowingly a computer without or exceed authorized to obtain related to national defense, foreign relations, or under the Atomic Energy Act, and then willfully communicate, deliver, or retain such in a manner endangering U.S. interests. This targets espionage-like activities involving classified or sensitive government-held . § 1030(a)(2) criminalizes intentionally a computer without or exceeding authorized to obtain three types of : (A) financial records from , card issuers, or consumer reporting agencies; (B) from any U.S. government department or agency; or (C) any from a protected computer. This broadly covers unauthorized , with (a)(2)(C) serving as a general offense for non-government, commerce-impacting systems. The offense in § 1030(a)(3) applies specifically to intentionally accessing a nonpublic computer of a U.S. government department or agency without authorization, where such access affects use by or for the government. Unlike other subsections, it does not require obtaining information or causing damage, focusing instead on simple trespassory interference with federal systems. Fraudulent access is prohibited by § 1030(a)(4), which bans knowingly accessing a protected computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, with intent to defraud, where the conduct furthers the fraud and obtains anything of value exceeding $5,000 in a one-year period (excluding mere use of the computer). This provision addresses schemes like wire fraud executed via computers. Damage-related offenses fall under § 1030(a)(5), divided into three parts: (A) knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command to a protected computer, intending to cause without authorization; (B) intentionally accessing a protected computer without authorization, recklessly causing ; and (C) intentionally accessing without authorization and causing and loss, informed by facts showing awareness of risk. These cover deployment, reckless , and knowing impairment, with "" defined as impairment of or . § 1030(a)(6) prohibits knowingly trafficking in any password or similar through which a protected computer may be accessed without , where such trafficking affects interstate or foreign or the use of a computer. This targets the sale or distribution of access credentials enabling violations. Finally, § 1030(a)(7) makes it an offense to transmit in interstate or foreign any communication containing a to: (A) cause damage to a protected computer; (B) obtain from a protected computer without or exceed authorized access to impair its integrity or availability; or (C) demand money or value in relation to damage to a protected computer, with intent to from any person. This addresses cyber , including demands.
SubsectionKey Prohibited ActRequired Mental StateDistinct Elements
(a)(1) to obtain and mishandle protected Knowing ; willful communication nexus
(a)(2) to obtain specified Intentional Types: financial/gov't/general
(a)(3) to nonpublic gov't computerIntentional Affects gov't use; no /damage req'd
(a)(4)Fraudulent for Knowing with to defraud>$5,000 in 1 year
(a)(5)(A)Transmit to cause damageKnowing transmission; to damage/code/command
(a)(5)(B-C) causing damage/lossIntentional; reckless or knowingRecklessness or awareness of risk
(a)(6) Knowing trafficking/gov't impact
(a)(7)Threat/demand re: damage or to extortCommunication in

Penalties and Enforcement Mechanisms

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, imposes criminal penalties that escalate based on the offense's severity, intent, resulting harm, and offender history, with maximum terms of ranging from one year for misdemeanors to life for violations causing . Fines are authorized under general federal sentencing provisions (18 U.S.C. § 3571), typically up to $250,000 for individuals or twice the gross gain/loss, whichever is greater, and courts must order forfeiture of involved and mandatory restitution to victims for losses exceeding $5,000 in economic damages, response costs, or other specified harms. For instance, intentionally accessing a protected computer to obtain (§ 1030(a)(1)) carries up to 10 years' , escalating to life if the conduct proximately causes ; unauthorized access for (§ 1030(a)(2)) starts as a one-year but becomes a five-year with commercial gain or prior offenses, or 10 years for repeat violations. Damage-related offenses under § 1030(a)(5) differentiate by : intentional transmission of harmful code or prevention of use yields up to 10 years (or 20 for repeats); reckless damage up to one year initially or five/20 years enhanced; negligent damage limited to one year.
Offense SubsectionDescriptionBase PenaltyEnhanced Penalty
§ 1030(a)(1)Accessing for infoUp to 10 yearsLife if death results
§ 1030(a)(2)Intentional unauthorized access for info/Up to 1 yearUp to 5 or 10 years (gain, prior, or repeat)
§ 1030(a)(3)Unauthorized access to nonpublic computerUp to 1 yearUp to 10 years ( or repeat)
§ 1030(a)(4)ulent access furthering schemeUp to 5 yearsUp to 10 years (repeat)
§ 1030(a)(5)(A)Intentional via code/preventionUp to 10 yearsUp to 20 years (repeat)
§ 1030(a)(5)(B)Reckless Up to 1 yearUp to 5 or 20 years (/repeat)
§ 1030(a)(5)(C)Negligent Up to 1 yearN/A
Civil remedies under § 1030(g) permit any aggrieved party—individuals or entities suffering damage or loss from a violation—to pursue compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees in federal court, provided losses meet thresholds like $5,000 in a year or involve threats to public health/safety; these actions supplement criminal proceedings and enable private enforcement against violators. Enforcement primarily falls to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which prosecutes via U.S. Attorneys' offices, often coordinating with the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) for complex cases; investigations are led by the FBI for national security or espionage-related violations, with support from agencies like the Secret Service for financial institution intrusions. Prosecutors exercise discretion guided by DOJ policy, including a May 2022 revision limiting charges for good-faith security research (e.g., vulnerability disclosures without further harm) or mere terms-of-service breaches unless they enable core unauthorized access, aiming to balance deterrence against stifling legitimate cybersecurity activities. Federal grand juries indict based on probable cause, with sentencing influenced by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that factor in loss amounts, victim numbers, and sophisticated means.

Judicial Interpretation

Evolution of Key Terms

Courts have grappled with the ambiguity of core CFAA terms, particularly "without authorization" and "exceeds authorized access," leading to circuit splits and eventual clarification. Early judicial interpretations in the 1990s and 2000s often adopted expansive readings, treating violations of employer policies or as triggering liability, which expanded the statute's reach beyond initial scenarios to include misuse of granted access. This "gates-up" approach, endorsed by circuits like the First and Eleventh, equated any improper use with exceeding access, raising concerns over criminalizing routine activities like or internal policy breaches. The Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States marked a pivotal narrowing of "exceeds authorized access" under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6), defining it strictly as obtaining information from system areas to which one's role does not permit entry, irrespective of the purpose for accessing permitted areas. In that case, a police officer with database credentials searched for personal financial gain but remained within his authorized scope, rendering his conduct non-violative; the Court rejected purpose-based interpretations as overbroad and inconsistent with the statute's text, which distinguishes access limits from use restrictions. This resolved prior splits, such as in United States v. Nosal (Ninth Circuit, 2012 and 2016), where insider misuse was deemed exceeding access, aligning federal law toward protecting system boundaries rather than policing data handling. Parallel evolution occurred for "without authorization," undefined in the statute but interpreted as lacking any initial permission to the computer at all, distinct from exceeding limits once inside. The Ninth Circuit's en banc ruling in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. Corp. (2019) exemplified this, holding that scraping publicly accessible data from a does not constitute unauthorized , as no technical or affirmative barriers barred entry. This contrasted earlier views, like in EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp. (First Circuit, 2003), which suggested terms-of-service violations could imply lack of authorization, but post-Van Buren precedents, including Sandvig v. Barr (D.C. Circuit, 2019), reinforced that mere policy disagreements or research testing do not equate to unauthorized entry absent explicit exclusion. The term "protected computer" under § 1030(e)(2) has seen less doctrinal flux, as congressional amendments progressively broadened it to encompass any device "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication," effectively covering most internet-connected systems since the 2001 USA and 2008 expansions. Courts have uniformly upheld this scope, interpreting it to include foreign servers with U.S. impacts, as in United States v. Auernheimer (Third Circuit, 2012, vacated on venue but affirming broadly), without significant narrowing, though some district courts have probed intent to ensure commerce nexus. This statutory evolution, ratified judicially, underscores the CFAA's adaptation to digital ubiquity while inviting debate on whether everyday devices qualify absent clear harm thresholds.

Major Supreme Court Decisions

In Musacchio v. United States, 577 U.S. 237 (2016), the examined the CFAA in the context of a convicted of accessing a former employer's protected computers without to obtain proprietary information. The unanimous decision, authored by Justice Thomas, clarified two procedural and substantive elements of CFAA prosecutions. First, when assessing the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, courts must evaluate it solely against the elements charged in the , disregarding any extraneous instructions given to the . Second, the CFAA's "knowingly" requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) does not extend to a defendant's awareness that their access lacked ; it applies only to the act of accessing the computer and obtaining the information, not to knowledge of the authorization boundaries. This ruling affirmed Musacchio's conviction but narrowed the mental state needed for CFAA violations, rejecting broader interpretations that could impose undue burdens on prosecutors while preserving the statute's focus on intentional unauthorized entry. The Court's interpretation in Musacchio emphasized statutory text over policy-driven expansions, holding that Congress did not intend the CFAA to criminalize access based on subjective beliefs about authorization limits absent explicit textual support. This approach aligned with traditional criminal law principles, where mens rea attaches to conduct elements rather than jurisdictional prerequisites unless specified. The decision resolved a circuit split on evidentiary review standards and provided clarity for CFAA enforcement by limiting appellate reversals based on uncharged theories. In , 593 U.S. 160 (2021), the addressed a circuit split over the meaning of "exceeds authorized access" in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(6), arising from a sergeant's use of a state database to verify a personal acquaintance's background for cash payment, despite having routine authorized access to the system. In a 6-3 by Justice Barrett, the Court held that an individual does not "exceed authorized access" by obtaining information from areas of a computer to which their access rights extend, even if done for an improper purpose or in violation of use restrictions; violation requires accessing data in restricted portions of the system to which the user lacks any entitlement. This textualist reading rejected the government's view that misuse of permitted data—such as breaching confidentiality policies—triggers liability, as it would expand the CFAA into a general federal misappropriation statute beyond Congress's intent to target hacking-like circumvention of technical barriers. The Van Buren decision drew on the statute's structure, distinguishing "without authorization" (lacking any permission to access the computer) from "exceeds authorized access" (permissible entry but forbidden files or ), and analogized to physical gates where insiders violating "no trespassing after hours" signs do not commit by entering open areas improperly. Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor in dissent, argued for a broader to encompass misuse, warning that the majority's rule could undermine employer policies and enable without consequence. By limiting CFAA's scope, the ruling curtailed its application to violations of or internal rules, potentially affecting civil claims under the statute while preserving criminal sanctions for true unauthorized intrusions. No other decisions have substantially interpreted core CFAA provisions as of 2025.

Notable Applications

Criminal Prosecutions

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has facilitated hundreds of federal criminal prosecutions since its enactment, primarily targeting unauthorized access, intentional damage, and trafficking in computer-related offenses, with the Department of Justice reporting over 1,000 CFAA-related indictments by the early 2010s, many resulting in convictions for activities. Convictions often involve charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a), carrying penalties up to 10 years for first offenses, escalating for recidivists or those causing significant damage exceeding $5,000. Prosecutors frequently combine CFAA counts with wire fraud or statutes to secure longer sentences, as seen in cases involving data breaches affecting protected computers used in interstate commerce. One of the earliest and most influential prosecutions was United States v. (1991), where graduate student released the on November 2, 1988, infecting approximately 6,000 computers—about 10% of the at the time—and causing an estimated $10 million to $100 million in cleanup costs. Indicted on January 3, 1989, under the CFAA for intentionally causing unauthorized access and damage to federal-interest computers, Morris was convicted on December 29, 1990, marking the first conviction under the statute; he received a sentence of three years , 400 hours of , and a $10,050 fine, avoiding due to judicial recognition of his lack of malicious intent and graduate student status. This case established precedents for interpreting "unauthorized access" and intent, influencing subsequent CFAA applications to self-propagating . In United States v. Mitnick (1999), hacker was prosecuted for a series of intrusions from 1994 to 1995 into corporate networks of firms including , , and , stealing and causing damages estimated at over $1 million. Arrested on February 15, 1995, after a two-year FBI manhunt, Mitnick pleaded guilty on January 21, 1999, to eight counts including CFAA violations for unauthorized access to protected computers, wire fraud, and possession of unauthorized access devices; he was sentenced to 46 months in prison plus eight months for a prior parole violation, totaling five years served, followed by three years supervised release. The case highlighted CFAA's role in addressing persistent hackers but drew criticism for pretrial and restrictions on Mitnick's computer use, reflecting early prosecutorial aggressiveness amid limited precedents. More recently, United States v. (2022) involved former Amazon Web Services engineer Paige Thompson, who exploited a misconfigured to access Capital One's cloud storage on March 22, 2019, exfiltrating data on over 100 million customers—including 140,000 Social Security numbers and 80,000 bank account numbers—resulting in $80 million to $150 million in remediation costs for the bank. Charged on July 29, 2019, with one count of CFAA violation for intentional unauthorized access causing damage, Thompson was convicted by jury on June 8, 2022, of that count plus wire fraud; initially sentenced on October 4, 2022, to (about two years pretrial) and five years , the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence on March 17, 2025, deeming it insufficiently punitive for the breach's scale—the second-largest in U.S. history at the time—and remanded for resentencing. This prosecution underscored CFAA's applicability to insider threats and cloud vulnerabilities, though debates persist over sentencing disparities in mental health-influenced cases.

Civil Litigation

The civil remedy provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), authorizes any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of the statute to maintain a civil action against the violator for compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief, including reasonable attorneys' fees. To prevail, plaintiffs must demonstrate a qualifying harm, such as economic loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any one-year period, physical injury to a person, threat to public health or safety, or modification or impairment of medical diagnosis or treatment, as specified in § 1030(e)(11) and cross-referenced in § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(I)-(VI). This threshold excludes mere investigative costs or speculative losses without concrete economic impact. Civil CFAA claims are frequently invoked by employers against former employees who access or misuse proprietary data on company systems post-termination, often alongside claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act or state laws, as the federal statute provides a private right of action without the need to prove criminal intent in many instances. Pre-2021 interpretations allowed liability for "exceeding authorized access" even when initial login credentials were valid but use violated employer policies; however, the Supreme Court's decision in Van Buren v. United States (2021) restricted this to cases of actual barriers circumvented, such as hacking or password theft, rather than purposive misuse of permitted access, thereby limiting civil applicability to insider threats involving technical unauthorized entry. This narrowing has reduced CFAA's utility in routine employee data exfiltration suits where no affirmative access restriction was breached, shifting reliance to contractual or tort remedies. Competitors and website operators have pursued CFAA civil actions against data scrapers who bypass terms-of-service restrictions or employ automated tools to extract information, alleging violations of § 1030(a)(2) or (a)(4) for intentional unauthorized access with intent to defraud. A prominent example is Ryanair DAC v. Booking Holdings Inc. (D. Del. 2020), where Ryanair alleged Booking.com violated the CFAA by scraping dynamic pricing data from its website without authorization, leading to a jury verdict in August 2024 finding a violation and awarding the statutory minimum $5,000 loss; however, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Booking in early 2025, overturning the verdict on grounds that Ryanair failed to prove cognizable economic loss beyond conjecture, highlighting post-Van Buren scrutiny of scraping claims absent clear unauthorized technical access. The parties settled the appeal in August 2025, underscoring the provision's challenges in proving requisite harm from automated data collection on publicly accessible sites. In disputes, CFAA civil suits complement economic claims by enabling recovery for data accessed via protected computers, but courts require evidence of tangible loss, such as remediation costs or revenue diversion, rather than nominal violations. remains selective, with plaintiffs often facing motions to dismiss for failing to meet the loss threshold or post-Van Buren access limits, resulting in fewer viable claims compared to criminal prosecutions.

Criticisms and Defenses

Claims of Overbreadth and Vagueness

Critics of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, have argued that its key provisions are unconstitutionally vague under the , as terms like "without authorization" and "exceeds authorized access" fail to provide fair notice of prohibited conduct to persons of ordinary intelligence. Legal scholar Orin S. Kerr contended in a 2004 analysis that the statute's expansion to cover misuse of lawfully obtained access—rather than solely unauthorized entry—creates ambiguity, as it does not clearly delineate when policy violations (e.g., using data for personal gain) cross into criminal territory, potentially inviting arbitrary enforcement. This , Kerr argued, applies particularly to subsections like § 1030(a)(2), which prohibits obtaining information by intentionally exceeding authorized access, without specifying thresholds for intent or harm that distinguish criminal acts from routine oversteps. Claims of overbreadth posit that the CFAA sweeps in protected activities beyond genuine or intrusion, infringing on First Amendment rights and principles by federalizing minor infractions traditionally handled by states or . For example, interpretations treating violations of website as "unauthorized access" could criminalize benign scraping of public data by researchers or journalists, as challenged in Sandvig v. Sessions (2016), where plaintiffs alleged the law chilled investigations into online discrimination by deeming terms violations as federal offenses. The has described such breadth as enabling misuse against and , noting that pre-2021 circuit splits allowed prosecutions for insider misuse without technical barriers breached, potentially encompassing millions of daily computer interactions. reports have echoed concerns of discriminatory enforcement risks due to over ill-defined boundaries. These challenges have surfaced in as-applied contexts, such as (2009), where a district dismissed charges against a user for terms violations as overbroad under the First Amendment, though reversed on appeal, and in academic critiques warning of chilling effects on innovation. While the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in narrowed "exceeds authorized access" to circumvention of technical restrictions—rejecting policy-based theories and mitigating some overbreadth—dissenters and reformers argue lingering ambiguities in "without authorization" persist, particularly for civil claims or evolving threats like insider threats without hacking. Proposed reforms, including bills like the 2015 Aaron's Law, sought to address these by excluding terms-of-service breaches, reflecting ongoing debates over balancing deterrence with constitutional limits.

Effects on Legitimate Activities

The broad language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), particularly provisions prohibiting access to computers "without authorization" or "exceeding authorized access," has generated significant uncertainty for individuals and organizations engaged in legitimate activities, fostering a chilling effect on practices such as cybersecurity research and data analysis. Prior to judicial clarifications, interpretations of the statute risked criminalizing actions where technical access was permissible but violated terms of service or employer policies, deterring ethical hackers from disclosing vulnerabilities to avoid potential liability. For instance, security researchers conducting penetration testing or vulnerability scanning often hesitated to probe systems without explicit permission, fearing prosecution despite intent to enhance defenses against cyber threats. This ambiguity particularly impacted white-hat hacking and bug bounty programs, where researchers identify flaws in software or networks to promote improvements, as the CFAA's lack of clear exemptions for good-faith efforts discouraged participation and delayed vulnerability remediation. Surveys and expert analyses have documented how the threat of CFAA enforcement suppressed necessary security research, with 75% of cybersecurity influencers in 2016 agreeing that the law overly restricted such work, potentially undermining national cybersecurity by reducing incentives for proactive defenses. The Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that the statute was invoked against researchers uncovering software flaws, even when disclosures aimed to protect users, illustrating how prosecutorial discretion amplified deterrence beyond malicious conduct. In response to these concerns, the U.S. Department of Justice revised its charging policy on May 19, 2022, directing prosecutors to decline cases involving good-faith security research, defined as accessing a computer solely to identify vulnerabilities with no intent to cause harm or profit from the access. This policy explicitly states that claiming security research does not immunize bad-faith actors but aims to alleviate fears among legitimate practitioners, such as those in programs. However, civil liability under the CFAA persists, allowing private lawsuits for damages exceeding $5,000, which continues to inhibit activities like academic or journalistic investigations into publicly accessible information, as seen in disputes over that tested boundaries of authorized access. Beyond research, the CFAA's effects extended to routine practices, such as employees or contractors accessing systems for non-malicious purposes that arguably exceeded policy-defined roles, prompting companies to impose stricter internal controls and limiting innovation in fields like gathering. The Supreme Court's decision in narrowed "exceeding authorized access" to cases of technical barrier circumvention rather than policy violations, mitigating some overreach but leaving "without authorization" open to interpretation in contexts like unauthorized use or network probing, sustaining caution among legitimate actors. Proposals for statutory safe harbors, including amendments to exempt non-harmful security activities, have been advocated to further reduce these barriers without weakening core prohibitions against fraud.

Case Studies in Controversy

In United States v. Swartz (2011), , a and internet activist, was indicted on thirteen counts, including eleven violations of the CFAA, for using a to download over four million academic articles from via MIT's network without permission. The charges stemmed from allegations that Swartz accessed protected computers "without authorization" and exceeded authorized access by evading IP restrictions, potentially facing up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. Prosecutors argued the systematic downloading constituted intentional damage and unauthorized access under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, despite no evidence of data alteration or commercial harm; Swartz's defense contended the acts were akin to bulk downloading for personal research, not hacking. The case drew widespread criticism for disproportionate prosecution of what some viewed as against paywalled public knowledge, with critics like the arguing it exemplified CFAA's vagueness in criminalizing routine . Swartz died by suicide in January 2013 before trial, prompting debates on prosecutorial overreach and leading to failed reform efforts like "Aaron's Law," which sought to limit CFAA's scope for non-malicious access. United States v. Nosal (Nosal I, 2012; Nosal II, 2016) highlighted disputes over the CFAA's "exceeds authorized access" provision in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). David Nosal, a former executive, was charged with aiding former colleagues to use their still-valid passwords to retrieve proprietary data from the firm's database after leaving employment, violating company policies against external use. The Ninth Circuit in Nosal I reversed convictions under this clause, holding that "exceeds authorized access" applies only to bypassing technical barriers, not misusing permitted access in violation of use restrictions, to avoid rendering everyday policy breaches felonies. However, Nosal II upheld convictions under § 1030(a)(4) for conspiracy to access with intent to defraud, interpreting password sharing as unauthorized access akin to "insider" . Critics, including the , contended this expanded CFAA to criminalize routine employee actions like sharing credentials, chilling legitimate data handling and blurring lines between civil contract disputes and federal crimes. Supporters of the prosecution viewed it as necessary to protect trade secrets, though the case underscored CFAA's potential for overbreadth in employment contexts. The prosecution of Andrew Auernheimer, known as "Weev," in United States v. Auernheimer (2012) exemplified CFAA applications to vulnerability disclosure. Auernheimer and accomplice Daniel Spitler exploited a configuration error in AT&T's iPad user registration page, a publicly accessible web server, to extract over 114,000 email addresses of early iPad owners via automated queries, without breaching passwords or altering data. Convicted on one count of conspiracy to violate CFAA's unauthorized access provision and one count of identity fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, Auernheimer received a 41-month sentence; the government alleged the scripted access caused server strain and privacy harm. The Third Circuit vacated the conviction in 2014 on venue grounds, ruling the trial in New Jersey improper since effects occurred elsewhere, but did not reach CFAA merits. Controversy arose over whether querying unsecured public endpoints constitutes "unauthorized access," with defenders arguing it incentivizes security research by punishing bug hunters rather than rewarding disclosures—Auernheimer had notified AT&T before publicizing findings—while prosecutors emphasized unintended exposure as a cognizable violation. This case fueled arguments that CFAA deters ethical hacking, potentially weakening cybersecurity by conflating discovery with crime.

Impact and Ongoing Debates

Effectiveness Against Cyber Threats

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has enabled numerous federal prosecutions of cyber intrusions, serving as the primary statutory tool for addressing unauthorized access to protected computers involved in interstate commerce. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) routinely invokes the CFAA in cases targeting malicious , , and deployment, with convictions yielding prison terms that impose personal costs on perpetrators. For example, in high-profile enforcement actions against foreign hackers, such as those linked to state actors breaching U.S. networks, the statute has supported indictments and asset forfeitures, disrupting operations and recovering stolen data. Despite these applications, the CFAA's effectiveness against evolving cyber threats remains constrained by its interpretive breadth and outdated framework, originally enacted in 1986 to combat early computer trespass rather than sophisticated, distributed attacks. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 decision in restricted the law's "exceeds authorized access" provision to outright unauthorized entry, excluding scenarios where insiders misuse permitted credentials—a common vector in and insider threats—thus narrowing prosecutorial reach against certain breaches. This ruling, combined with the statute's failure to explicitly cover emerging tactics like distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) floods or supply-chain compromises, has prompted DOJ policy revisions in 2022 to deprioritize cases lacking clear unauthorized access, potentially under-deterring gray-area threats. Empirical indicators of limited deterrent impact include persistent rises in reported cyber incidents, with the FBI's documenting over 800,000 complaints in 2022 alone, many involving hacking predicates under CFAA jurisdiction, yet conviction rates remain selective due to evidentiary hurdles in attributing transnational actors. While the facilitates civil remedies and enhanced penalties—up to 10 years imprisonment for aggravated offenses—it imposes comparatively lighter sentences than statutes like wire , reducing incentives for compliance among organized cybercriminal networks. Legislative responses, such as bipartisan bills introduced in 2025 to bolster DOJ tools against cyber rings, underscore perceptions that the CFAA alone insufficiently scales to nation-state adversaries or botnet-driven attacks.

Proposed Reforms and Legislative Responses

In response to criticisms of the CFAA's breadth following the 2011 prosecution of , which resulted in his amid facing up to 35 years in for downloading academic articles, bipartisan legislation known as Aaron's Law was introduced in the 113th Congress. H.R. 2454, sponsored by Representatives (D-CA) and (R-WI) on June 20, 2013, proposed narrowing the statute's "exceeds authorized access" provision to "access without permission," thereby excluding violations of use policies or from criminal liability unless accompanied by intent to defraud and economic loss exceeding $5,000. The bill further aimed to prevent prosecutors from stacking multiple CFAA counts or combining them with analogous state offenses to inflate mandatory minimum sentences, addressing concerns over disproportionate penalties for non-malicious conduct. Reintroduced in the 114th on April 21, 2015, as H.R. 698 and S. 878 by Lofgren, Senator (D-OR), and Senator (R-KY), the measure sought to recalibrate by requiring tangible harm for felony charges and exempting good-faith security research. Despite support from technology advocates like the , which highlighted the CFAA's chilling effects on innovation and journalism, Aaron's Law stalled in committee and failed to pass. The Supreme Court's June 3, 2021, decision in provided judicial narrowing by interpreting "exceeds authorized access" to require bypassing technical barriers rather than mere misuse of permitted access, prompting calls for legislative codification but yielding no enacted amendments by 2025. Senator Wyden praised the ruling for curbing overreach into routine activities like checking personal on a work computer, yet urged to enact clearer limits to avoid reliance on inconsistent court interpretations. To counter evolving threats like and state-sponsored , the bipartisan Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act (S. 431) was introduced in the 119th on February 11, 2025, by Senators (R-SD) and (D-NY), amending 18 U.S.C. § 1030 to explicitly criminalize conspiracies to violate CFAA provisions. The bill elevates penalties for such conspiracies to match underlying offenses, targeting facilitators in complex operations without requiring completed acts, as a response to gaps exposed in prosecuting international schemes. As of October 2025, it remains under consideration, reflecting tensions between bolstering enforcement and avoiding further expansion of an already expansive statute.

References

  1. [1]
    18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with ...
    18 U.S. Code § 1030 covers unauthorized computer access, obtaining restricted data, accessing financial records, accessing nonpublic government computers, and ...
  2. [2]
    9-48.000 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - Department of Justice
    Section 1030 describes a number of offenses that occur when a defendant accesses a protected computer “without authorization.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1), (a)( ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Primer on Computer Crimes - United States Sentencing Commission
    Congress enacted the computer fraud statute at section 1030 as part of the Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. Pub. L. No. 98– ...Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  4. [4]
    Cybercrime and the Law: Primer on the Computer Fraud and Abuse ...
    May 16, 2023 · The CFAA prohibits seven categories of conduct, ranging from certain acts of computer trespass to unauthorized computer access with an intent to ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Cybercrime: An Overview of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse ...
    May 23, 2025 · The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, outlaws conduct that victimizes computer systems. It is a cyber security law.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Prosecuting Computer Crimes - Department of Justice
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act..........................................1. A ... in 18 U.S.C. § 1030 prohibit unlawful access of a “protected computer,” which.
  7. [7]
    NACDL - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was enacted in 1986, as an amendment to the first federal computer fraud law, to address hacking.
  8. [8]
    Supreme Court Adopts Narrow Interpretation of Computer Fraud and ...
    Jun 4, 2021 · The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 USC § 1030 et seq., does not prohibit improper use of computer information.
  9. [9]
    CFAA Background - NACDL
    Just two years later, Congress significantly expanded the computer crime statute by passing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). The original CFAA was ...
  10. [10]
    [PDF] STAT. 1213 Public Law 99-474 99th Congress An Act - GovInfo
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. of 1986. This Act may be cited as the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of note. 1986". SEC. 2. SECTION 1030 ...
  11. [11]
    H.R.4718 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 - Congress.gov
    Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 - Amends the Federal criminal code to change the scienter requirement from "knowingly" to "intentionally" for certain ...
  12. [12]
    H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and ...
    Title XXIX: Computer Crime - Computer Abuse Amendments Act of 1994 - Amends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to make it a felony to knowingly transmit an ...Public Law No: 103-322 · Cosponsors (2) · Titles (90) · Committees (1)
  13. [13]
    CFAA Amendments and Evolution of Federal Computer Crime Laws
    What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)? The CFAA is a United States federal law enacted in 1986 to combat hacking and other computer-related offenses.
  14. [14]
    Department of Justice Announces New Policy for Charging Cases ...
    May 19, 2022 · The Department of Justice today announced the revision of its policy regarding charging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).Missing: enactment | Show results with:enactment
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Primer on Computer Crimes - United States Sentencing Commission
    The primary statute for computer crimes is 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers), which prohibits computer fraud and abuse.Missing: summary | Show results with:summary
  16. [16]
    Reining in overly broad interpretations of the Computer Fraud and ...
    Jun 7, 2021 · The term “without authorization” is not defined in the statute. “Exceeds authorized access” is defined, but only in a somewhat circular ...Missing: judicial evolution
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Which Rule of Statutory Interpretation Applies to the Computer Fraud ...
    without authorization, to a protected computer,” which also includes the ... without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” of the CFAA so as ...
  18. [18]
    Supreme Court significantly limits the scope of the Computer Fraud ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · ... protected computer” under the CFAA when using information ... The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the “exceeds authorized access ...Missing: judicial evolution key
  19. [19]
    Van Buren is a Victory Against Overbroad Interpretations of the ...
    Jun 3, 2021 · ... computer without authorization or exceed[] authorized access, and thereby obtain[] . . . information from any protected computer ... Act (CFAA) ...
  20. [20]
    "Authorized Access": The Supreme Court's First Foray Into The ...
    Apr 22, 2020 · The CFAA imposes criminal liability on any person who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization” or “exceeds authorized access” ...Missing: judicial evolution key
  21. [21]
    Digital Gatekeepers - Texas Law Review
    Close In both hiQ and Sandvig, the courts considered whether platforms like LinkedIn and Amazon could use the CFAA to stop people from gathering information ...
  22. [22]
    Is My Toaster a Computer? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's ...
    Mar 30, 2019 · Is My Toaster a Computer? The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act's Definition of “Protected Computer” in the Age of the Internet of Things.<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    Supreme Court Issues CFAA decision in Michael Musacchio v ...
    Jan 29, 2016 · The government charged the Musacchio with violating the CFAA for intentionally accessing his former employer's computer systems without ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] 19-783 Van Buren v. United States (06/03/2021) - Supreme Court
    Jun 3, 2021 · We must decide whether Van Buren also violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which makes it illegal “to access a computer ...Missing: major | Show results with:major
  25. [25]
    Van Buren v. United States: Supreme Court Holds Accessing ...
    Jul 1, 2021 · United States, holding that an individual does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) if he is authorized to obtain information on ...
  26. [26]
    Morris Worm - FBI
    In 1986, Congress had passed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, outlawing unauthorized access to protected computers. Prosecutors indicted Morris in 1989 ...Missing: notable | Show results with:notable
  27. [27]
    Why Robert Morris Didn't Go to Jail - Business Insider
    Jan 21, 2013 · Prosecutors went after him under the CFAA, seeking to hold him up as an example in a case that could have put the young genius behind bars for ...
  28. [28]
    United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (1991): Case Brief Summary
    The United States government prosecuted Morris for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by accessing a federal-interest computer without authorization.Missing: conviction | Show results with:conviction
  29. [29]
    Kevin Mitnick, hacker and FBI-wanted felon turned security guru ...
    Jul 20, 2023 · The government accused him of causing millions of dollars in damages to companies including Motorola, Novell, Nokia and Sun Microsystems by ...Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  30. [30]
    #089 Fugitive Computer Hacker Arrested in North Carolina
    FBI agents and the Raleigh-Durham Fugitive Task Force today arrested Kevin Mitnick, a well-known computer hacker and federal fugitive on charges he violated ...Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  31. [31]
    Kevin Mitnick - Wikipedia
    In 1995, he was arrested for various computer and communications-related crimes, and spent five years in prison after being convicted of fraud and illegally ...Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  32. [32]
    United States v. Paige Thompson - Department of Justice
    Paige Thompson, a former software engineer, was charged with computer fraud and abuse for stealing Capital One data, which she posted about on GitHub.
  33. [33]
    [PDF] U.S. v. Thompson - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Mar 17, 2025 · 2. USA V. THOMPSON. SUMMARY*. Criminal Law. The panel vacated Paige Thompson's sentence and remanded for resentencing in a case in which ...Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  34. [34]
    Capital One hacker Paige Thompson got too light a sentence ...
    Mar 19, 2025 · Two of the three judges said five years' probation and time served didn't match the severity of the crime, among other reasons for overturning ...Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  35. [35]
    [PDF] the impact of van buren v. united states on civil claims under
    May 18, 2022 · This Article addresses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's June. 2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States on what constitutes. “ ...
  36. [36]
    Supreme Court Narrows The Scope of Liability Under The Computer ...
    Jun 8, 2021 · The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the CFAA does not cover those who have improper motives for obtaining computerized information they are otherwise authorized ...
  37. [37]
    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act After Van Buren | ACS
    The dispute focused on a core definition at the heart of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), a federal law criminalizing certain acts by so-called computer ...
  38. [38]
    District Court Decision Brings New Life to CFAA to Combat ...
    Nov 10, 2022 · In finding Ryanair's vicarious civil claims were cognizable under the CFAA, the district court pointed to a bevy of decisions that have ...
  39. [39]
    District Court Ruling Offers Insight into Computer Fraud and Abuse ...
    Aug 12, 2024 · A unanimous Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) jury verdict for client Ryanair DAC against Booking.com in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.Missing: litigation | Show results with:litigation
  40. [40]
    Cooley Secures Decisive Win for Booking.com in Computer Fraud ...
    Jan 22, 2025 · In one of the first civil US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) cases to go to trial, Cooley secured a decisive win on behalf of its client, Booking.com, ...
  41. [41]
    Court Overturns a Bad Jury Verdict Against Scraping-Ryanair v ...
    Mar 2, 2025 · The jury returned a verdict that Booking Holdings had caused exactly $5,000 in legally cognizable “loss” to Ryanair under the CFAA—the statutory ...Missing: outcome | Show results with:outcome
  42. [42]
    Computer Fraud & Abuse Act - IP Law: Trade Secrets
    Nov 11, 2023 · The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) provides criminal sanctions and civil actions for misappropriating trade secrets stored on protected computers.<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    Supreme Court Limits Scope of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
    Jun 8, 2021 · Id. at § 1030(g). The CFAA has thus allowed an employer whose employee misappropriates confidential information from a computer to not only sue ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Vagueness Challenges to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
    COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT OF 1986 ... 154 It "would re- sult in transforming § 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a ...
  45. [45]
    Sandvig v. Barr — Challenge to CFAA Prohibition on Uncovering ...
    The CFAA provision in question has been interpreted to prohibit an individual from visiting a website in a manner that violates the terms of service or terms of ...Summary · Legal Documents · Press Releases
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Why Broad Interpretations of the CFAA Fail
    Employees' Authorization Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 107 MICH. L. REV. 819,. 835 (2009) (detailing the legislative history and concluding that the ...
  47. [47]
    Do Not Read This Article at Work: The CFAA's Vagueness Problem ...
    ... CFAA unconstitutionally vague. In the past year, lawmakers have introduced bills to clarify the conduct prohibited by the CFAA. Although each proposal ...
  48. [48]
    America's anti-hacking laws pose a risk to national security | Brookings
    Sep 7, 2021 · For years, the CFAA and another law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), have cast a pall of legal uncertainty over white-hat hackers' ...
  49. [49]
    DOJ Acknowledges Limits to the CFAA, but Questions (and Possible ...
    May 25, 2022 · The new policy also limits prosecutions based on terms of service (TOS) or other boilerplate contractual violations, in recognition of the U.S. ...Missing: mechanisms | Show results with:mechanisms
  50. [50]
    Influencers: Antihacking law obstructs security research
    Sep 20, 2016 · A strong 75 percent majority of Passcode's Influencers said a US government law used to prosecute hackers overly restricts necessary security research.
  51. [51]
    DOJ's New CFAA Policy is a Good Start But Does Not Go Far ...
    May 19, 2022 · Previously, the law had been interpreted to allow criminal charges ... EFF To Supreme Court: Violating Terms of Service Isn't a Crime Under the ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Coming in from the Cold: A Safe Harbor from the CFAA and the ...
    In our paper, we propose a safe harbor for Security Research Activities (as defined below) from two. U.S. statutes that have generated these chilling effects, ...<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    CFAA Cases - NACDL
    Jul 14, 2022 · These are example cases of federal prosecutions including Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) violations.<|control11|><|separator|>
  54. [54]
    MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz | FAQs
    Jul 30, 2013 · The initial indictment by a federal grand jury on July 14, 2011, charged Aaron Swartz on four felony counts: one count of wire fraud and three ...
  55. [55]
    Disappointing Unsealing Decision in Aaron Swartz Case
    May 14, 2013 · The government brought a myriad of charges against Swartz, most notably under the draconian Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). After his ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Computer Fraud and Abuse or Prosecutorial Fraud and Abuse
    See Garnick, Losing Aaron Swartz (skeptical that Swartz would have escaped prosecution under Kerr's rule because Swartz repeatedly spoofed his MAC address.
  57. [57]
    United States v. Nosal (Nosal II) - Harvard Law Review
    Feb 10, 2017 · The government indicted Nosal on nineteen criminal counts, five of which alleged CFAA violations under the “exceeds authorized access” clause ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] United States v. Nosal - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Jul 5, 2016 · In the first indictment, Nosal was charged with twenty criminal counts, including eight counts under the CFAA, two trade secrets counts under ...
  59. [59]
    Ever Use Someone Else's Password? Go to Jail, says the Ninth Circuit
    Jul 11, 2016 · Regardless, a jury then convicted Nosal under three CFAA counts involving password sharing, along with trade secret theft under the Economic ...
  60. [60]
  61. [61]
    Appeals Court Overturns Conviction of AT&T Hacker 'Weev' - WIRED
    Apr 11, 2014 · Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer, a hacker sentenced to three and a half years in prison for obtaining the personal data of more than 100,000 iPad ...
  62. [62]
    Weev's Case Flawed From Beginning to End
    Jul 3, 2013 · First, Auernheimer didn't unlawfully possess the e-mail addresses under the CFAA, meaning there was no underlying crime to hinge the identity ...
  63. [63]
    SCOTUS limits scope of computer fraud law. Here's the business ...
    Jun 4, 2021 · The decision narrows the scope of the CFAA to only address individuals without any permission to access a computer system. “Previously, some ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] The Computer Fraud & Abuse Act: Failing to Evolve with the Digital ...
    This article addresses the CFAA's failure to handle new developments such as DDoS attacks, hackivists mobs, cyber soldiers/ terrorists and cyber vigilantes and ...
  65. [65]
    US Senators Push for Stronger Cybercrime and Computer Fraud ...
    Apr 17, 2025 · The Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act, as noted, aims to amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which governs computer fraud and abuse.
  66. [66]
    Is It Time to Rethink the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
    Feb 15, 2023 · The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act aims to prevent malicious hacking but has long been accused of being overly broad and vague.
  67. [67]
    H.R.2454 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Aaron's Law Act of 2013
    Aaron's Law Act of 2013 - Amends provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) prohibiting computer fraud to replace the phrase "exceeds authorized ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Aaron's Law Summary - Senator Ron Wyden
    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is a sweeping anti-hacking law that criminalizes many forms of common. Internet use and allows breathtaking levels of ...
  69. [69]
    Aaron's Law Reintroduced: CFAA Didn't Fix Itself
    Apr 29, 2015 · The CFAA is one of the laws that is misused by prosecutors, piling on potential jail time to relatively minor charges in order to ratchet up ...
  70. [70]
    Wyden Statement on SCOTUS Van Buren v. United States Decision
    Jun 3, 2021 · “The Supreme Court recognized today that the terribly written CFAA crossed the line by criminalizing everyday activities like using your work ...
  71. [71]
    Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act 119th Congress (2025-2026)
    Summary of S.431 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act.Missing: CFAA | Show results with:CFAA
  72. [72]
    Bipartisan Senate bill would strengthen cybercrime penalties
    Feb 11, 2025 · The legislation from Sens. Rounds and Gillibrand would amend federal criminal code on computer fraud and stiffen punishments.
  73. [73]
    Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act proposed, cyber expert weighs in
    Feb 14, 2025 · This bill, the Cyber Conspiracy Modernization Act (CCMA), seeks to modify the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in order to enact a penalty for conspiracy.