A v. Ex Rel. Vanderhye v. Iparadigms, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that use of another’s password to access website without website owner’s permission was unauthorized access in violation of CFAA
• noting that the “broadly worded [§ 1030(e)(11)] plainly contemplates consequential damages of the type sought by iParadigms—costs incurred as part of the response to a [] violation”
• explaining that the statute is “primarily a criminal statute designed to combat hacking”
• noting allegedly infringing uses “can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work”
• faulting the plaintiffs for “fail[ing] to recognize the overlap that exists between the [first and third] fair use factors”
• “This broadly worded provision plainly contemplates . . . costs incurred as part of the response to a CFAA violation, including the investigation of an offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).