When the dispute concerns the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). In Global Policy Partners, LLC, v. Yessin, a federal court in Virginia recently held that a plaintiff had adequately stated claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Stored Communications Act (SCA) portion of ECPA when she alleged that her husband and business partner had accessed her work email account in order to review her communications with her divorce lawyer. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the defendant’s access to her email was unauthorized, and thus violative of both the CFAA and SCA, even though the defendant was a co-manager of the couple’s business, because there was no legitimate business reason for his actions. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim under the Wiretap Act portion of ECPA, however, finding that the plaintiff had failed to allege that her emails were “intercepted” within the meaning of the Act. And there the court earned its place in the sports metaphor hall of fame by invoking a football analogy to interpret the notoriously difficult ECPA.