No, Sending Spam Text Messages Is Not The Same As Hacking Someone's Phone
from the misusing-computer-fraud-law dept
There's just something about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the "anti-hacking" law in the US -- that seems to leave it open for abuse in lawsuits. This is the law that was used to convict Lori Drew. Even though the judge eventually tossed the ruling, it showed how the broadly-worded law could be applied in dangerous ways. Still, at least some attempts at twisting the law aren't getting very far. For example, a woman in Minnesota tried to use the law against a company that sent her spam text messages she never requested, and discovered that in order to bring a case under a law, you have to actually show that the law was broken:Plaintiff brings three possible claims: (1) a claim for obtaining information from her phone; (2) a claim for transmitting information or code through her phone; and (3) a claim for "accessing" her phone.So, nice try, but no dice. Someone sending unsolicited text messages to your mobile phone may be annoying (and potentially illegal under other laws), but it's not hacking under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Information Claim: The court rejects the information-based claim because there's no information that WSOD allegedly obtained through accessing the plaintiff's phone. Plaintiff analogizes to websites and argues that any time someone sends a message to a mobile phone, information is "obtained" in the same way that information is obtained any time someone accesses a website. The court rejects this analogy, finding that "there is a fundamental difference between viewing websites and communicating with wireless devices such as cell phones by sending text messages." Even if the transmission of an unwanted text message somehow resulted in the "obtaining of information," the court concludes that there's no loss as a result of defendant having obtained the information.
Transmission Claim: The transmission claim requires plaintiff to allege that WSOD caused the transmission of code or information and as a result "intentionally caused damage without authorization" to plaintiff's device. The complaint fails on both counts. There wasn't a credible allegation of damage (there was no allegation of impairment to the machine) or of WSOD's intent to cause the damage.
Access Claim: The court rejects the access claim since plaintiff does not adequately allege that the unauthorized access was intentional.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computer fraud and abuse act, hacking, spam
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Some people do not understand this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SPAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good
It's still the most popular one out there, but I used to get these types of lawsuit threats all the time. I'd always advise the person that it wasn't me sending the message and to have a lawyer explain section 230 to them.
Thankfully I never had to go to court.
That's one hell of an effort over a text message. Delete it and move on. If you keep getting them, block the number and move on. Why would this have to go to court?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No damage?
(Normatively, I agree that these kinds of cases stretch CFAA far beyond its intended purpose, and guilty verdicts/plaintiff judgments render the statute void for vagueness, as the Lori Drew judge pointed out.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SPAM
Individuals cannot bring a lawsuit under CAN SPAM. Only ISPs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good
I have Verizon and asked about that a few years ago but I was told it wasn't possible. I had a someone who was calling my phone repeatedly and leaving voicemails, but wouldn't take the hint when I never called back. Since I couldn't block their number, my eventual solution was to answer the phone and then immediately end the call so there was no way for them to leave a voicemail. Eventually, they did get the hint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: SPAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html
If you read the part about "Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems" It states that it covers Text messages to wireless phones. so unless WSOD was manually entering the data for everyone they were spamming this is illegal. the woman needs some new legal council.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
TCPA also covers mobile customers that still pay per message received or get charged airtime to download a message.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]