>I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors t

>I'd argue that it crosses the threshold into behavior that should fall outside the bounds of legal competition. We're better off with many weaker competitors than we are with one strong one. That's the funny thing about this. I completely agree that we're better with many smaller competitors. The CFAA, like most such laws, is routinely used to stop small competitors. The CFAA is a huge reason that tech incumbents are able to keep their de-facto monopolies, exactly because they make up licensing agreements that say "Reading our site means you swear you won't compete against us" and then send out a firm full of $1k/hr lawyers to do their dirty work. An "even playing field" would not put force of law behind such fantastical, unrealistic, and anti-competitive assertions. Signing up for the other guy's ToS is not something that would fire off moral alarm bells in your average person. It's naive to believe that anyone adheres to these absurdities, and you have to be a huge company to enforce them. The false belief that businesses actually restrain themselves to align with such regulations instead of fighting hard to get in a winning position is exactly what leads to damaging laws like the CFAA in the first place. The net effect is that small innovators get obliterated and denounced for trying to get some leverage while companies playing in the hundreds of millions (Lyft and Uber) can squabble in court before deciding to save some dough and draw up a settlement that says they'll stop accessing the other guy's API (at which point they'll find a proxy or replacement).