Not really. I would just read the word "fraud" in the very title of the act and decide that means that whether or not the access was unauthorized depends on wh

Not really. I would just read the word "fraud" in the very title of the act and decide that means that whether or not the access was unauthorized depends on whether you lied to gain access. I won't claim that test is perfect, but it's a lot clearer than the current standards and when I go through past cases, I don't see it coming to any indefensible conclusions. Yes, that would agree with the majority holding in this case. It's important to note that even if they didn't violate the CFAA, they likely broke plenty of other laws and can be punished for that. So this conduct absolutely deserves to be punished, just not under the CFAA.