Angela Tomlinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the Ninth 15 Circuit has “rejected the contract-based interpretation of the CFAA’s prohibitions
• noting that “monetary injury is not normally considered irreparable”
• finding irreparable harm where company showed likelihood of 14 having to breach existing contracts with specific clients, that its financing round had been 15 stalled, and that several employees had left the company
• “We have held in another context that the 8 phrase “without authorization” is a non-technical term that, given its plain and ordinary 9 meaning, means accessing a protected computer without permission.”
• threat of business “extinction,” beyond monetary damages, established irreparable harm 3 where plaintiff would have “no viable way to remain in business other than using [defendant’s] 4 public profile data for its [business services]’”
• “The pivotal CFAA question here is whether once hiQ received LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist letter, any further scraping and use of LinkedIn’s data was ‘without authorization’ within the meaning of the CFAA and thus a violation of the statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).