Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2012 - Hacking Lawsuits

CyberTrialLawyer.com Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


MRI SOFTWARE, LLC v. LYNX SYSTEMS, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
1:12-CV-01082-CAB
FILED: 05/01/12

This lawsuit includes many different legal bases for recovery but with respect to “hacking” the claims relate to a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  The Defendant is alleged to have repetitively accessed the Plaintiff’s computer systems to obtain information in order to provide service for the Plaintiff’s products and services.  This type of aggressive business practice, if true, is becoming more prevalent.  While businesses in the past have allowed this type of business to thrive, today we see a much more aggressive effort to protect intellectual property and enforce the laws. 

The Plaintiff is a software manufacturer and Lynx is alleged to have illegally accessed its computers, obtained and created derivative works of its software, and used those works in unlawful ways to offer low-cost support and maintenance for MRI Software.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair competition, misappropriation of confidential business information and/or trade secrets, trespassing, breach of agreement, intentional or negligent interference with existing and prospective economic advantage, trademark infringement, commercial disparagement, false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff MRI Software requests that Defendant Lynx Systems be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and from engaging in any acts of unfair competition, unfair practices, trespassing, or computer fraud against Plaintiff MRI.  Plaintiff requests that Defendant Lynx be ordered to return MRI’s property including MRI Software and promotional materials and that MRI receive treble, punitive, exemplary, and statutory damages in addition to the recovery of costs for this action, reasonable counsel fees, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. CyberTrialLawyer.com Cross Reference Number 1569.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2012 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

RITLABS, S.R.L. v. RITLABS, INC., ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA)
1:12-CV-00215-AJT-IDD
FILED: 2/28/2012

Whenever an employee or contractor is no longer providing service to your company you need to change all passwords so there can be no further unauthorized access.

The Plaintiff is an Internet technology and software provider located in Moldova. Defendant Demcenko is alleged to have formed a Virginia corporation in the name of the Plaintiff and held itself out as a branch or affiliate of the Plaintiff, all without Plaintiff’s knowledge. Defendant Demcenko is alleged to have accessed the Plaintiff’s domain name registrant account and misappropriated several important domain names owned by the Plaintiff.

Allegations in the lawsuit include cybersquatting, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, false designation of origin, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, conversion, tortious interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests that the Court issue temporary and permanent injunctive relief from further infringement, the transfer of all infringing domain names, the award of actual, consequential, and statutory damages, Defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1549.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC. v. REALIZED SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)
3:11-CV01423
FILED: 9/15/2011

With respect to hacking, the Defendants are alleged to have accessed the computer of the Plaintiffs without authorization. This type of allegation is the basis for “hacking” claims in civil, as well as criminal, prosecutions.

The Plaintiff owns a unique software program that allows parking facility owners and operators the ability to manage, control and report via wireless handheld computers all revenue and customer service transactions. The Defendants, after being employed by the Plaintiff, have allegedly breached their fiduciary duty by surreptitiously setting up a new competing business using the source code, trade secrets and confidential information of CSI.

Allegations in the lawsuit include copyright infringement, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Connecticut Computer Crimes Statutes and violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1527.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


NATHAN E. BLAIR and CEBERUS ONLINE GAMES, LLC v. CHARLES ADKINS
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA (ATLANTA)
1:11:CV-02555
FILED 8/3/2011

Be very careful about the contractors you use. This alleged “high jacking” is not unusual.

The Plaintiffs are the owners and developers of a multiplayer online videogame. The Defendant is a developer who is alleged to have modified files in Plaintiffs’ game with malicious computer code and subsequently “high jacked” all of the traffic leading to Plaintiffs’ website.

Allegations in the lawsuit include violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, unfair competition, violation of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The prayer for relief includes requests for permanent injunctive relief, punitive damages, actual and consequential damages, an accounting and disgorgement of Defendant’s revenue, attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1523.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


SQUARE ENIX LIMITED v. JOHN DOES 1-15
WESTERN DIVISION OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:11-CV-01045
FILED: 6/22/2011

Anytime you use someone else’s password and access a computer you are likely violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or local computer crime statutes. These are typically criminal and civil in nature. Don’t use someone else’s password or log-in information to get into a program or on to a website.

The Plaintiff is a UK company developing and distributing home video game computer programs. The Defendants are alleged to have logged into the restrictive account hosting the game preview and copied the game preview from the server and distributed it to other Defendants and third parties using peer to peer file sharing protocol.

Allegations in the lawsuit include copyright infringement and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1508.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

XEROX CORPORATION v. JOHN DOES
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN)
3:11-CV-00590
FILED: 4/14/2011

This is the first time I’ve seen a hacking case brought based upon access to computers not owned or controlled by the Plaintiff. A recent 9th circuit decision has extended the application of this hacking law and it is now being applied very broadly to include authorized access to a computer based upon subsequent unauthorized use of the information obtained. This lawsuit and the recent court decision show a tendency to expand protections.

The Defendants are alleged to have impersonated a Xerox executive by creating a Gmail and Facebook account in his name and then using the Gmail account to spam. The violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is alleged to rise from the Defendants’ access of a third party’s computer system, namely Google and Facebook.

The law suit alleges violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of the Connecticut Computer Crimes Statutes, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff requests temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants along with compensatory damages, actual damages, costs, statutory damage, punitive damages, exemplary damages, and any additional relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1487.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC. d/b/a YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORPORATION v. THE LILLY COMPANY
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
4:11-CV-00028
FILED: 2/22/11

The use of a password to get access to a competitor’s private resource area is typically characterized as “hacking”. If the allegations are true the Defendant is exposed to a broad range of potential liabilities under the federal and state hacking laws. Make sure that your staff understands it is not permitted to use someone else’s passwords to gain access to any websites.

The Plaintiff manufactures and sells lift trucks. It maintains a dealer resource site restricted to authorized users. Lilly allegedly obtained unauthorized access to the secure dealer resource site. The Defendant is a direct competitor of the Plaintiff. The unauthorized access allegedly provided detailed specifications and trade secrets.

Plaintiff alleges violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, computer trespass, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contract and business relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and copyright infringement. The lawsuit requests injunctive relief, destruction of infringing materials, punitive damages, actual damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief the Court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1477.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2011 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. v. REALPAGE, INC. and DC CONSULTING, INC.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:11-CV-00690
FILED: 1/24/2011

If you are going to hire employees from a competitor make sure you conduct appropriate due diligence, make sure that they understand that no trade secret information or passwords of any kind can be brought with them to their new job, and have them sign a contract promising that they are not bringing with them any trade secret, confidential or proprietary information. It is also important that you find out if they have signed a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement with their previous employer so you can assess the risk. And remember, using passwords acquired during a previous employment to now compete against a business is most likely going to be considered “hacking”.

Yardi and the Defendants compete in the sale of property management software and related services. RealPage acquired a consulting group, today known as “DC Consulting, Inc.”, which was a consulting company providing technology and software support services almost exclusively for Plaintiff’s users. Defendants have allegedly continued to access the Plaintiff’s “client central” software using stolen credentials acquired by the consulting company when it was providing services to Plaintiff’s clients.

Plaintiff alleges violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition. The prayer for relief includes requests for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1468.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2010 - Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


VITAL SOUNDS, INC. and THERAPEUTIC RESOURCES, INC. v. VISION AUDIO, INC. and WILLIAM P. MUELLER
WESTERN DSITRICT OF WISCONSIN (MADISON)
3:10-CV-00602
FILED: 10/13/2010

If you are buying email lists make sure that you understand the source of the email addresses. While CAN-SPAM does not require “opt-in” addresses, it is certainly advisable to conduct some reasonable degree of due diligence so that you are not purchasing a stolen email list.

Vital Sounds is in the business of selling audio CDs, headphones, books and other tools to teachers, therapists, and families for use in providing counseling and rehabilitative services. The Defendant is alleged to have sent emails selling audio CDs to the Plaintiffs’ confidential and proprietary mailing list. The Defendant is alleged to have hacked into Plaintiffs’ computers to obtain the list.

Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, fraud in connection with computers, offense against computer data under Wisconsin law, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The lawsuit requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as actual damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1453.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


MICAH BREDEN and FORESIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. v. TC CORRIHER IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (ASHEVILLE)
1:10-CV-00210
FILED: 9/24/2010

This whole problem arose because the retailer signed a three year contract promising to pay 4% of the costs of goods sold through its website each month in exchange for search engine optimization services. These types of agreements are fundamentally problematic because compensation to the search engine optimization service provider is not tied directly to its performance, but rather to the overall performance of the retail website irrespective of the success of the search engine optimization efforts. When you are creating these types of vendor relationship take great care in structuring an agreement that makes sense.

Plaintiff is a search engine optimization company and Defendant is a retailer that hired the Plaintiff to provide search engine optimization services for its retail website. The Defendant, or an agent, is alleged to have obtained a domain name log-in and password through unauthorized access to the Plaintiff’s computers and took possession of disputed domain names.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiff requests that the Court grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with actual damages, treble damages, interest, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1446.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


PEARSON EDUCATION, INC. v. RAMEEZ RAZZAQ BALAGAMWALA and SAMAR R. BALAGAMWALA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)
4:10-CV-03038
FILED: 8/24/2010

Don’t use other people’s passwords to gain access to any website. Today most user agreements specifically prohibit the transfer of log-in and password information to third parties and specifically prohibit a third party from accessing the site. There are state and federal civil and criminal laws that are being used today to police this type of conduct.

Pearson is the world’s leading publisher of textbooks and online educational products. The Defendants are residents of Texas who offer to complete students’ homework on Plaintiff’s website for a fee by obtaining the password from the student. This use of a student’s password is unauthorized and contrary to the rules of Plaintiff’s website and is putting at risk Plaintiff’s reputation.

The lawsuit claims violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Texas Computer Crimes Act, trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, tortious interference with contractual relations, and fraud. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of Defendants’ domain names, an accounting of profits, actual damages, treble damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1445.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


BRITANIC VENTURES 1 L P, ET AL. v. MICHAEL STUART, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)
4:10-CV-02604
FILED: 7/22/2010

Hacking isn’t what most people think of when lawsuits are filed alleging unauthorized access. But in fact any unauthorized access to a computer that causes damage is considered hacking under federal and state laws, and in this case the hacking action was brought under a state law prohibiting harmful access to a computer. You’d be surprised how often contractual disputes relating to IT and computer services support turn into allegations of “hacking”.

Britanic Ventures is the developer of high-end oceanfront living located in Mexico in the form of a condominium development. Defendants were responsible for developing Plaintiffs’ website. Defendants are alleged to have accessed the computer network and website of the Plaintiffs and hijacked it.

Plaintiffs allege distributing false copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, breach of contract, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, harmful access by a computer, tortious interference with existing contracts, tortious interference with prospective relations, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of confidentiality, fraud by non-disclosure, conspiracy, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Lanham Act, violation of the Texas Anti-Dilution Statute, common law unfair competition, violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, violation of Texas Pen. Code § 33.02, infliction of bodily injury, and offensive physical contact. Relief requested includes declaratory judgments on behalf of the Plaintiff, a temporary restraining order, temporary injunctive relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, actual and consequential damages, statutory damages in an amount of $250,000 for each violation, exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a request for accounting. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1439.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


3BA INTERNATIONAL LLC v. KEVIN LUBAHN, ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:10-CV-00829
FILED: 5/18/2010

If you are an email administrator, or have administrative access, and get into a dispute the last thing you want to do is surreptitiously obtain copies of all emails flowing in and out of a business server. This raises such a broad range of potential liability that it is almost unmanageable in terms of the risk to you and your financial well being.

3BA International is a professional basketball league that was formed in 2007. The individual Defendants were involved with the basketball league in one way or another and are alleged to have conspired to steal and misappropriate confidential and proprietary trade secret information. Defendant LuBahn is alleged to have hacked into all of the employees email accounts and directed that all incoming and outgoing emails be blind carbon copied to his personal email account.

Plaintiff alleges breach of common law confidentiality obligations, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty/common law duty of loyalty, tortious interference with business relationships, libel and slander, violation of the Lanham Act, conversion, misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the Stored Communications Act, and violation of the Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Prayer for relief includes requests for injunctive relief along with actual damages, consequential damages, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other and further relief the court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1430.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


LOOPNET INC. v. CAROLINABIZBUYSELL INC. AND GINO CALEJO
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:10-CV-00612
FILED: 2/11/2010

When your use of a website exceeds the use permitted by the website owner in its “user agreement” or other contract to which you are bound, it is unauthorized access and the federal hacking law applies if damages reach a certain level. The courts are split as to how to evaluate damages in situations like this, but the rule of thumb is that you must abide by the contract terms of a website.

Loopnet is a leading commercial real estate information service provider offering a suite of products and services for the commercial investment industry. The Defendant is a South Carolina corporation that operates as a full service business brokerage. The Defendant is alleged to have repeatedly and intentionally accessed Loopnet’s “BizBuySell.com” website without authorization and obtained business listings and reproduced that information on its own website as its own independently developed information.

The lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and common law unfair competition. The Prayer for Relief includes requests for temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and cost of litigation. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1408.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2010 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

INTERACTIVE INFLATABLES, CORP. AND PARTY PALS v. KENNETH RICHARD KOVIN, ET AL.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN DIEGO)
3:10-CV-00197
FILED: 1/26/2010

Disputes about the ownership of domain names are nothing new. If you are an employee of a company or a partner with someone, make sure you have a clear understanding as to who actually owns a domain name. All because your name is on the account as a registrant contact, or even as the individual registrant, means very little if you acquired it while employed by, and for the benefit of, your employer or other business enterprise.

The Plaintiff is one of the largest special events, party and game rental sources in the country. The Defendants are former employees who allegedly acquired access to the Plaintiff’s domain name registrant account at Go Daddy before they left to start a competing business and transferred control of the Plaintiff’s website to themselves hidden behind the “domains-by-proxy” service.

The lawsuit alleges intentional and bad faith misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, common law unfair competition, violation of California Business and Professional Code 17200 and 17500, conversion, fraud, intentional interference with economic relationships, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, federal unfair competition, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, copyright infringement, breach of duty of loyalty, and civil conspiracy. The claim for relief includes a request for declaratory relief and extensive injunctive relief as well as restitution, disgorgement of profits related to Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, actual damages, compensatory damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, statutory double damages, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1391.

ASSOCIATED CONTENT, INC. v. BRIAN ADAMS
DISTRICT OF COLORADO (DENVER)
1:10-CV-00039
FILED: 1/08/2010

“Hacking” is the unauthorized access of computers. In order to be prosecuted criminally you generally have to damage the computer or business in a very serious way. In order to be sued civilly federal law requires at least $5,000 in economic damages. Some state laws permit prosecution or a civil action with no damages. Unknown to most people is the fact that signing up for a website contrary to the specific provisions of the user agreement can be considered “hacking” and get you in a lot of trouble. Can you legally use an alias or a pseudonym to sign-up for a website when the user agreement requires you to use your real name? It is an unsettled area of law, but as we see in this case, you can certainly be sued for doing so.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a highly successful website where independent writers and publishers can submit original articles on a wide variety of topics in a range of formats. The Defendant is alleged to have obtained unauthorized and fraudulent accounts that gave him access to the Associated Content website. Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant authored a “How To” guide that provides detailed instructions on how to defraud Associated Content.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, federal copyright infringement, federal trademark infringement, federal trademark dilution, and unjust enrichment. Prayer for Relief requests injunctive relief against the Defendant as well as actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1392.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2009 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-5
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:09-CV-10257
FILED: 12/18/2009

The extent of successful hacking in the US and abroad is underappreciated and unrecognized. For instance, successful cyber attacks have been going on for years and major systems have been penetrated and infiltrated. Every small business should consider obtaining insurance for data loss to cover the profound consequences if hackers get into a system.

Condé Nast Publications publishes almost 20 magazines with international circulation including GQ, Vogue, Wired, and others. The Plaintiff alleges that unknown Defendants have been hacking into their computers and stealing advanced covers, pages, and alternative artwork intended to be used for an upcoming magazine edition. The Defendants are alleged to have then published the property on various online sites.

The lawsuit Plaintiff has filed against Defendant includes claims for copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and expenses, investigation expenses, damages, any profits or gain by Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial, statutory damages, and such further and additional relief the Court may deem to be just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1393.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2009 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


WARNER BROS, ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. JOHN DOES 1-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:09-CV-08622
FILED: 11/23/2009

It would perhaps be appropriate to point out that the abilities of hackers from all around the world have typically evolved far beyond what most of the public believes. Cyber attacks have proliferated and many in the security industry believe that World War III will be a cyber war. Keep this in mind: Most businesses are not “hacker proof”.

Unknown Defendants accessed the Warner Bros’ servers and copied images and other information that apparently related to motion pictures and television series that are entitled to copyright protection. There aren’t many details in the lawsuit as to the exact programs or motion pictures that were misappropriated or the manner in which they might have been published on the web.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of the California Penal Code 502, and trespass to chattels. The claim for relief includes a request for the entry of permanent injunctions prohibiting access to Warner Bros’ properties or use of infringing materials, an order requiring the return of all data obtained from Warner Bros’ servers and monetary awards of compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1382.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2009 Hacking Lawsuits

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. TROOPAL STRATEGIES, INC., ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04741
FILED: 10/05/2009

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. J.P.LAMERE, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04740
FILED: 10/05/2009

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. JOHN DOE AND CRAIGSLISTBOTPRO.COM
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04739
FILED: 10/05/2009

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. JOHN DOE d/b/a CLADGENIUS.COM, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04737
FILED: 10/05/2009

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. RED TRUMPET LLC AND JEFFREY H. YIP
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN FRANCISCO)
3:09-CV-04743
FILED: 10/05/2009

CRAIGSLIST, INC. v. EDDIE TEMPLE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE)
5:09-CV-04738
FILED: 10/05/2009

We are often asked about the legality of using automated programs to interact with websites or “scrape” content. There are a long line of cases going back to the mid 1990’s that prohibit this type of access to computers if there is a prohibition communicated through a user agreement. These claims are the cyber equivalent of a trespass on someone’s land. Remember the signs that say “No Trespassing” nailed to trees? A user agreement with a prohibition against accessing a website is the virtual equivalent of a “No Trespassing” sign. And if you think you can avoid this type of liability by claiming that you did not read the user agreement, I’ve tried my fair share of criminal trespass cases earlier in my career and every defendant said: “I didn’t see the No Trespassing sign”. It never worked.

The Plaintiff, Craigslist, has sued a broad range of Defendants for using auto-posting software, programs, devices and services on the Craigslist website contrary to the user agreement. This access is the basis for a hacking claim, or better known as a “Computer Fraud and Abuse Act” claim alleging unauthorized access to Craigslist’s computer systems and services.

The lawsuits include claims for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, violation of California penal code 502, trademark infringement, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and fraud. Plaintiff requests that the Court issue extensive preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendants. Additional relief requested includes the disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1373.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2009 Hacking Lawsuits

There are no Traverse Internet Law comments for September, 2009 lawsuits on Hacking.