The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is notoriously vague or confusing on some issues, leading to conflicting decisions over when access to a computer is "without authorization" and what constitutes compensable "damage" or "loss." But once in a while, a court interprets the CFAA in a way that is simply inexplicable. A district court in Mississippi recently granted a defendant's motion for summary judgment on a CFAA claim brought by a company whose files were allegedly deleted by a disloyal employee who was working for a competitor. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to allege a cognizable loss because it had not alleged damage to company computers or an interruption of service. The court ignored language in the CFAA expressly allowing relief for "impairment to the integrity or availability of data … or information," and for the costs of "conducting a damage assessment" and "restoring the data … or information."