In Re DoubleClick Inc. Privacy Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that subsection (B) did not apply because the communications at issue were not being stored by an electronic communication service
• holding that computer programs known as \cookies” placed by inter net advertising corporation on the hard drives of plaintiffs’ computers were not in \electronic storage”
• holding that subsection (B) did not apply because the communications at issue were not being stored by an electronic communication service
• holding that website visitors did not suffer a cognizable economic loss from the collection of their data for purposes of stating a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
• concluding that “the legislative record suggests that the element of ‘tortious’ or ‘criminal’ mens rea is required to establish a prohibited purpose under § 2511(2)(d)”
• recognizing that “any economic losses” a party bears “in securing or remedying their systems in the wake of [an] alleged CFAA violation[] would count towards § 1030(e)(8)(A)’s damage threshold”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).