3rd Circuit Clarifies Scope of Computer Fraud Abuse Act With Employers Policies Lawcom

pLawcom Products ResourcesppToolsppAccountpp Sign in to access your account and subscription ppToolsppRegionsppTopicsppResourcesppTop NewsppResourcesppOtherppPublicationppLegaltech Newspp Reporting and expert analysis of legal technology with a focus onwhat legal departments law firms and tech companies need to know ppSurveys RankingsppMarket hubsppOtherppRankingppThe 2025 Am Law 100 Rankingspp The Am Law 100 is the definitive ranking of the 100 largest law firms in the United States ppToolppLawcom Compasspp Dynamically explore and compare data on law firms companies individual lawyers and industry trends ppToolppLawcom Radarpp Personalized legal news feed that provides the ability to be first to know whats driving new suits and deals in key industry segments ppProppMembership CommunitiesppPublic NoticesppResourcesppIndeed there are many other causes of actionbreach of contract business torts fraud negligence and so onthat provide a remedy for employers when employees grossly transgress computeruse policies The CFAA is the wrong tool for NRAs project With todays holding we mean to turn future litigants to other causes of action so that we do not make millions of otherwise lawabiding citizens into criminals Judge Thomas L Ambro saidppFont SizeppThe US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified this week that an employees purported violations of workplace computer use policies cannot be criminalized under federal law as long as there is no evidence of hacking or violations of trade secretsppAlready a part of the community Sign In NowppIs one article a month not enough Subscribe today to unlock premium access to all the indepth analysis and breaking news on critical legal issues from LawcomppMay exclude premium contentppFont SizeppPage printed frompp NOT FOR REPRINT pp 2025 ALM Global LLC All Rights Reserved Request academic reuse from wwwcopyrightcom All other uses submit a request to email protected For more information visit Asset Logo Licensing ppThis tactic forces defendants into a nowin situation to counter the anchoring effect of the plaintiffs number they must offer a figure of their owndespite maintaining that theres no liability and the proper amount is zero defense attorney Maureen M McBride cochair of Lamb McErlanes appellate department saidppFor catastrophicinjury survivors and their families fair compensation is not about windfalls It is about security stability and recognition of what has been taken It is about ensuring that when life is permanently altered we accept our role in helping to ensure that the civiljustice system delivers more than partial justiceppAfter a federal judge trimmed Gita Sankanos claims against the firm while allowing allegations of retaliatory firing to move forward the parties agreed to mediate their dispute ppThe US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits published opinion and subsequent procedural history make plain that the dispute is principally about constitutional and statutory allocation of tariff power rather than an automatic trigger for economic collapse ppThe Tropicana lawyer Damian Jackson of Reilly McDevitt Henrich in Philadelphia maintained at trial that his client was not liable for the malfunctioning door because it had no notice and because the casino is such a large building with numerous doors plaintiffs counsel saidppThe industryleading media platform offering competitive intelligence to prepare for today and anticipate opportunities for future successAs a part of your digital membership you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletterspp Lawcom Publications ppLinkedInppFacebookppTwitterppRSS Feedp