Even if the case was tried today, 9th Cir. isn't binding on other regions of the US, and there's a bit of a split, as detailed in the opinion[1]: > In recogniz

Even if the case was tried today, 9th Cir. isn't binding on other regions of the US, and there's a bit of a split, as detailed in the opinion[1]: > In recognizing that the CFAA is best understood as an anti-intrusion statute and not as a “misappropriation statute,” we rejected the contract-based interpretation of the CFAA’s “without authorization” provision adopted by some of our sister circuits. Compare Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 313 (2017) (“[A] violation of the terms of use of a website—without more— cannot establish liability under the CFAA.”); Nosal I, 676 F.3d at 862 (“We remain unpersuaded by the decisions of our sister circuits that interpret the CFAA broadly to cover violations of corporate computer use restrictions or violations of a duty of loyalty.”), with EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 583–84 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding that violations of a confidentiality agreement or other contractual restraints could give rise to a claim for unauthorized access under the CFAA); United States v. Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that a defendant “exceeds authorized access” when violating policies governing authorized use of databases). weev was tried in an area under the 3rd Cir. jurisdiction. Somewhat interestingly, his conviction was thrown out in 2014 on venue grounds (e.g. being tried in NJ), without addressing the statutory question.[2] [1]: pp. 27-28 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev?oldid=912921723#cite_ref-48 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev?oldid=912921723#cite_ref-...