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: 1-10 of 20

Ninth Circuit ruling trimming CFAA claims for misappropriation reminds employers that technical network security is the first defense
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 13 2012

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, has upheld a district court’s dismissal of criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that were predicated on misappropriation of proprietary documents in violation of the employer’s computer use policy


Employee violation of employer computer use policy can support CFAA criminal charge
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An employee's violation of an employer's computer use policy can support a criminal charge of exceeding authorized access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a district court ruled


Employer may have violated Lanham Act, state right of publicity, in impersonation of employee on social media
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

An employer that is alleged to have posted messages impersonating an employee on her personal Facebook and Twitter pages while she was recuperating from an accident may be liable under the Lanham Act for false endorsement and under the Illinois right of publicity, a district court ruled


Ninth Circuit will rehear important employee data theft case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 1 2011

On October 27, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed to rehear the appeal in United States v. Nosal


Ninth Circuit panel says employee violation of employer computer use policy can support CFAA criminal charge
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 29 2011

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that an employee’s violation of an employer's computer use policy can support a criminal charge of exceeding authorized access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act


Who owns an employee's Twitter and other online accounts?
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • December 8 2011

In this era of multiple online communication channels, and in an environment of increased employee mobility, employers need to focus on the legal and practical ways of securing their ownership of online company accounts that are registered or otherwise created by employees or contractors


Employee access to computer network in furtherance of criminal fraud “exceeds authorized access” under CFAA
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

An employee who accessed financial data on her employer's computer network in violation of official policy in order to perpetrate a criminal scheme exceeded her authorized access to the network within the meaning of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled


Applying 9th Circuit LVRC v. Brekka ruling, district court dismisses most CFAA criminal charges in United States v. Nosal
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 29 2010

The debate over the applicability of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in cases of alleged employee disloyalty has yielded quite a few rulings over the last several years, and generated a circuit split last September with the Ninth Circuit decision in LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009


Use of e-mail client rule to acquire copies of e-mail messages violates Wiretap Act
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 11 2011

An employee who accessed the rule function on his supervisor's e-mail account in order to have copies of the supervisor's e-mail messages forwarded to him violated the provisions of the Wiretap Act that prohibit intentional interception of an electronic communication, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled


State Appeals Court concludes employer not protected by CDS Section 230 in employee stalking case, and seems to shrink the statute along the way
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • June 29 2012

An Illinois state appeals court recently held that although an employer that provided network connectivity to its employees is an “interactive service provider” under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the statute does not protect the employer from negligent supervision claims based upon the employee’s alleged use of the network to communicate threats to a third party