We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 11-20 of 34

Waiting on Nosal...combating data theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the Ninth Circuit
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 20 2012

A recent California federal court decision has permitted an employer to pursue a former employee for alleged violations of the employer's computer usage policies under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), while an en banc Ninth Circuit panel considers the validity of such claims


Minnesota district court dismisses Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim brought against former employee based upon narrow interpretation of Act
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2012

In another decision that underscores the circuit split regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (CFAA) language on authorized access, the Honorable Judge David Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has dismissed an employer’s claim that its former employees violated the Act


Dead again? Use of computer fraud and abuse act by employers to combat employee data theft limited by Ninth Circuit's latest ruling
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 29 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that U.S. v. Nosal be reheard en banc by all of the Appeals Court judges and that the “three-judge panel opinion in U.S. v. Nosal, 642 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2011) shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.”


Key Computer Fraud and Abuse Act case heard by Ninth Circuit en banc panel: can rogue employees be held liable for data theft under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 16 2011

The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on the key United States v. Nosal case yesterday before an en banc panel


Employers' obligation to defend and indemnify rogue employees in California?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • October 14 2011

On October 12, 2011, the California Court of Appeal in Nicholas Laboratories, LLC v. Christopher Chen, No. G044105, 2011 WL 4823329 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2011), held that Labor Code section 2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employee for attorney fees incurred in the employee’s successful defense of the employer’s action against the employee


Colorado Federal Court rules that former employer stated a claim against former executive and his new employer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act regardless of differing circuit interpretations of the act
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 9 2012

In its order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss in SBM Site Services, LLC v. Garrett, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00385, a Colorado federal court identified a circuit split over the interpretation of “unauthorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and then found a former employer had stated a CFAA claim against a former executive and his new employer regardless of the different circuit interpretations based upon his post-termination computer activities


Solicitor General decides not to file petition for review in United States v. Nosal: Circuit split on Computer Fraud and Abuse Act remains
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • August 3 2012

The Solicitor General indicated yesterday that he will not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nosal


The Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is back in play for employer suits against dishonest employees in the Ninth Circuit
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • May 2 2011

On April 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an important decision upholding legal protections for employer data that employees may be held liable under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030 et seq.) in cases where employees steal or remove electronic files or data in violation of their employers' written computer-use restrictions


Fitness companies spar over unauthorized access of departing employee's personal e-mail accounts
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2011

Wrongfully accessing someone's personal email account may cost you $1,000 per unauthorized access, even if that person suffers no injury or loss


Nevada Supreme Court rules that restrictive employment agreements acquired through mergers are not subject to Nevada's strict assignment rule
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • July 2 2009

In a decision that encourages cost efficient corporate mergers in Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court in HD Supply Facilities Maintenance v. Bymoan, 2009 WL 1635924 (June 11, 2009) recently ruled in an en banc decision that restrictive employment agreements acquired through corporate mergers do not require a showing that the agreements’ assignment provisions were negotiated at arm’s length or are supported by separate consideration