General Background and ClaimsBy way of brief background, Mintz left Priority Sports in March 2012, accepted a position with competitor CAA, and immediately sought declaratory relief to invalidate his non-compete agreement with Priority Sports. As the case progressed, Mintz added additional claims against Priority Sports for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and California Penal Code section 502, as well as claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional inference with contractual relations, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Mintz asserted some of the claims against Priority Sports principle Mark Bartelstein.Mintz alleged that he worked for Priority Sports for eleven years and then decided to pursue a better opportunity with CAA.

By Robert Milliganand Jeffrey OhFor the past three years, social media platform Facebook has pursued legal action against social media aggregator Power Ventures (“Power”)over what it has viewed asa blatant violation ofstate and federal law. Filed by Facebook in December 2008, the suit alleges violations by Power of the CAN-SPAM Act in addition to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (California Penal Code § 502). Facebook generally alleged that Power accessed its website in an unauthorized manner, and then utilized this unauthorized access to send unsolicited and misleading commercial emails to Facebook users.On February 16, 2012, United StatesDistrict Chief Judge James Ware of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Facebook’s Motions for Summary Judgment on all three counts.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a decision that could have far reaching implications for the relationships between companies that provide online services, their customers or users, and third parties. In Facebook v. Vachani, the Ninth Circuit found that Power Ventures violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and California Penal Code Section 502. Power Ventures did this by continuing to access Facebook’s computer system after receiving Facebook’s letter to cease and desist such activity.

See id., slip op. at 11.In addition, the court also considered whether hiQ potentially violated California Penal Code § 502, a state law claim analogous to CFAA. See id., slip op. at 17-18, n.13.

See id., slip op. at 11.In addition, the court also considered whether hiQ potentially violated California Penal Code § 502, a state law claim analogous to CFAA. See id., slip op. at 17-18, n.13.

The same court reiterated that view in U.S. v. Christensen, Nos. 08-50531, et al. (Aug. 28, 2015). The court added, however, that California Penal Code § 502, which prohibits taking or using information on a computer without permission, does not require unauthorized access and, therefore, is markedly unlike 18 U.S.C. § 1030.In decisions announced before 2015, the Fourth Circuit concurred with Nosal, but the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh disagreed. Judicial decisions in 2015 supported each position and, therefore, further muddied the waters.In U.S. v. Valle, Nos. 14-2710-cr and 14-4396-cr (2d Cir., Dec. 3, 2015) (2-1 decision), the majority concluded that there is equal merit to the narrow statutory interpretation announced in Nosal, and the diametrically opposed, broader interpretation set forth by courts disagreeing with Nosal.

See also Andreini & Co. v. MacCorkle Ins. Serv., Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1396 (2013) (Cal. Rule of Court 8.278 permitting recovery of costs for interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to deposit as security pending appeal of adverse judgment is not retroactive).Former Employee Was Properly Convicted For Disrupting Employer’s Computer SystemPeople v. Childs, 2013 WL 5779044 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)A jury convicted Terry Childs of disrupting or denying computer services to an authorized user (his employer, the City and County of San Francisco) pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 502(c)(5). He was sentenced to four years in state prison and ordered to pay more than $1.4 million in restitution.

See also Andreini & Co. v. MacCorkle Ins. Serv., Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1396 (2013) (Cal. Rule of Court 8.278 permitting recovery of costs for interest expenses incurred to borrow funds to deposit as security pending appeal of adverse judgment is not retroactive).Former Employee Was Properly Convicted For Disrupting Employer's Computer SystemPeople v. Childs, 2013 WL 5779044 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) A jury convicted Terry Childs of disrupting or denying computer services to an authorized user (his employer, the City and County of San Francisco) pursuant to Cal. Pen. Code § 502(c)(5). He was sentenced to four years in state prison and ordered to pay more than $1.4 million in restitution.

The case involves some interesting non-compete, trade secret, and privacy issues.In April 2012, we first alerted you to the colorful case of Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates d/b/a Priority Sports & Entertainment, Case No. 12-02554 SVW (SSX), (C.D. Cal.), where Aaron Mintz, a National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) certified player-agent, brought a declaratory relief suit seeking to invalidate his non-compete agreement with his former employer, Priority Sports & Entertainment (“Priority”).Mintz, based in Los Angeles, left Priority in March 2012, accepted a position with competitor Creative Artists Agency (“CAA”), and immediately sought declaratory relief to invalidate his two year non-compete agreement.As the case has progressed, Mintz has added additional claims against Priority for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic Communications Act, and California Penal Code section 502, as well as claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional inference with contractual relations, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Mintz has also asserted some of the claims against Priority principle Mark Bartelstein.Mintz alleges that he worked eleven years for Priority and then decided to pursue a better opportunity with CAA.

In a case brought by Facebook, a U.S. district court recently concluded that a website that offered to integrate multiple social networking accounts into a single social networking “experience” violated the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM Act”), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), and California Penal Code § 502. Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2012 WL 542586 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2012).Power Ventures, which operated the “experience” website, began a “Launch Promotion” in December 2008 that promised users the chance to win $100 if they successfully invited and signed up new users to Power Venture’s website, www.power.com.