In the recent federal case in the Middle District of Tennessee, ReMedPar, Inc. v. AllParts Med., LLC, a split among federal circuit courts is apparent regarding the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (CFAA) civil cause of action for accessing a protected computer without authorization or exceeding the scope of permitted authorization. In ReMedPar, Inc, the plaintiff filed a suit against an independent contractor who allegedly gave a competitor the plaintiff’s software and source codes to develop a comparable software system. The case was dismissed as the court found the independent contractor was not without or exceeding authorization as he was given permission to access the computers by the plaintiff. The split in interpretation among the federal circuits of the CFAA is apparent with the Middle District of Tennessee and others courts, including the 9th Circuit, holding CFAA claims are only applicable to those cases in which access was undeniably exceeded; whereas the 1st and 7th Circuits hold a less extreme approach, finding CFAA claims are permitted when a person misuses access in any way adverse to the authorizer’s interest.
