1 JENNIFER STISA GRANICK (California Bar No. 168423) [email protected] 2 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street 3 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x134 4 Fax: (415) 436-9993 (fax) 5 PHILLIP R. MALONE (California Bar No. 163969) [email protected] 6 CYBERLAW CLINIC 7 BERKMAN CENTER FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 8 23 Everett Street 9 Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 384-9134 10 Amici Curiae 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 UNITED STATES, ) Case No. CR-08-0582-GW ) ) 16 Plaintiff, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER 17 ) FOUNDATION, ET AL., IN v. ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 18 ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) INDICTMENT FOR FAILURE TO ) 19 LORI DREW STATE AN OFFENSE AND FOR ) VAGUENESS 20 ) Defendant. ) Date: September 4, 2008 21 ) Time:. 8:30 AM ) 22 ) Honorable Judge George H. Wu 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. CR-08-0582-GW BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................I 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................III 4 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................................. 1 5 FACTS AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.................................................................... 3 6 I. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT DREW BECAUSE HER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF 7 THE MYSPACE TERMS OF USE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “UNAUTHORIZED 8 ACCESS” OR “EXCEEDING AUTHORIZED ACCESS” UNDER THE STATUTE ............ 6 A. BY ITS PLAIN TERMS, THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT PROHIBITS 9 TRESPASS AND THEFT, NOT MERE CONTRACTUAL VIOLATIONS OF TERMS OF 10 USE ........................................................................................................................................... 6 B. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT THE CFAA 11 PROHIBITS TRESPASS AND THEFT, NOT IMPROPER MOTIVE OR USE. ....................... 8 12 C. COURTS ARE JUSTIFIABLY WARY EVEN OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF 13 WEBSITE TERMS OF SERVICE........................................................................................... 10 D. IMPOSING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR IGNORING OR VIOLATING TERMS OF 14 SERVICE WOULD BE AN UNPRECEDENTED, EXTRAORDINARY AND DANGEROUS 15 EXTENSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW..................................................................... 12 E. THE BETTER VIEW, SUPPORTED BY MORE RECENT CASES, REJECTS CFAA 16 LIABILITY FOR AUTHORIZED USERS ACTING OUTSIDE THE TERMS AND 17 CONDITIONS OF THAT AUTHORIZATION ....................................................................... 14 1. MORE RECENT, BETTER-REASONED CASES ADOPT A NARROWER VIEW OF 18 “EXCEEDING AUTHORIZED ACCESS”............................................................................ 14 19 2. OLDER CASES WRONGLY ADOPTED A BROADER VIEW OF “EXCEEDING AUTHORIZED ACCESS” .................................................................................................... 17 20 F. THE RULE OF LENITY REQUIRES THE NARROWER INTERPRETATION OF THE 21 CFAA’S “ACCESS” LANGUAGE ......................................................................................... 20 22 G. THE GOVERNMENT'S PREVIOUS ATTEMPT IN THIS DISTRICT TO EXPAND CIVIL CASES INTERPRETING THE CFAA INTO THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT LED TO 23 THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND INCARCERATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL FOR 24 CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES............................................................. 21 II. APPLYING THE CFAA TO DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT IN THIS CASE WOULD 25 CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS ENCROACHMENT ON FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL 26 LIBERTIES, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH............................................................ 23 A. THE FIRST AMENDMENT ASSURES THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ANONYMOUSLY 27 ONLINE.................................................................................................................................. 23 28 i Case No. CV-07-05669 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 B. CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE DICTATES A NARROW READING OF “ACCESS” UNDER THE CFAA ............................................................................................................... 26 2 III. APPLICATION OF THE CFAA WHEN A USER IGNORES OR VIOLATES 3 WEBSITE TERMS OF SERVICE WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AND RENDER THE STATUTE VOID FOR VAGUENESS AND LACK OF FAIR NOTICE....................... 26 4 A. WEB SITE TERMS OF SERVICE ARE ROUTINELY IGNORED OR NOT FULLY 5 READ OR UNDERSTOOD..................................................................................................... 28 6 B. WEB SITE TERMS ARE FREQUENTLY AND ARBITRARILY CHANGED BY SITE OWNERS WITH LITTLE OR NO LIKELIHOOD OF ACTUAL NOTICE TO USERS ......... 31 7 C. WEB SITE TERMS MAY THEMSELVES BE ARBITRARY, VAGUE, OR FRIVOLOUS 8 AND ARE CREATED BY PRIVATE SITE OWNERS FOR A MYRIAD OF BUSINESS OR PERSONAL REASONS HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH REGULATING “ACCESS” 9 FOR CFAA PURPOSES.......................................................................................................... 33 10 D. BASING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON PRIVATE CONTRACT TERMS INEVITABLY WILL LEAD TO ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT ..................... 34 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii Case No. CV-07-05669 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 CASES 3 ACLU of Ga. v. Miller, 977 F. Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997).................................... 24 4 ACLU v. Johnson, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D.N.M. 1998) ............................................ 24 5 America Online Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (E.D. Va. 1998) ............... 19 6 ApolloMEDIA Corp. v. Reno, 526 U.S. 1061 (1999) ............................................... 24 7 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (2002) ............................................... 25 8 Brett Senior & Associates, P.C. v. Fitzgerald, 2007 WL 2043377 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 9 2007) ......................................................................................................... 8, 14, 16 10 Canada Dry Corp. v. Nehi Beverage Co., 723 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1983).................. 25 11 Christensen v. C.I.R., 523 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008)................................................... 7 12 City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)................................................ 27, 33 13 Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, (1971).................................................. 34 14 Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999).................. 24 15 Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) ................................................................... 26 16 D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (1972)........................................... 25 17 Diamond Power Int’l, Inc. v. Davidson, 540 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2007) 14, 15 18 Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001).................... 24 19 Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005)................................................................. 25 20 Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. Calif., 495 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) ... 32 21 Educ’al Testing Service v. Stanley H. Kaplan, Educ’al Center., Ltd., 965 F. Supp. 731 (D. Md. 1997) ............................................................................................... 17 22 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001)................... 19 23 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp. 318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003).......................... 19 24 Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................ 28 25 Gibson v. Fla. Legislative Investigative Comm., 372 U.S. 539 (1963)..................... 24 26 Global Telemedia Int’l v. Does, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ................. 24 27 Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).............................................................. 27 28 iii Case No. CV-07-05669 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 Humanitarian Law Project v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2007)................... 28 2 Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D.Md 2005) ..................................................................................... passim 3 Int'l Airport Ctrs., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006) ............................ 18 4 Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939) .......................................................... 27 5 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004)...................................................................... 20 6 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Speed, 2006 WL 2683058 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2006) . 8, 14, 7 15 8 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)...................................... 24 9 McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) ....................................................... 20 10 Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................... 27 11 Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 301 U.S. 292 (1937) ....................... 25 12 Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005)................................................. 20 13 Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................. 19 14 Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004)................................. 19 15 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) ......................................................................