GUEST BLOG FROM BARRY BARNETT
Barry Barnett has been a Guest
Blogger in the past, his Blawgletter provides great thoughts, and insights. I
read his blogs regularly. Over the years Barry and I have had a number of cases
together and he is an outstanding lawyer. Barry is a partner at Susman Godfrey and I'm sure we will see
more Guest Blogs from him in the future.
Can Sue for Email Barrage, Sixth Circuit Holds
Do you wonder what you could do if
someone targets your company with a torrent of calls and emails? Wonder no
more. You can sue under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030,
which creates both criminal penalties and a civil cause of action.
So held the Sixth Circuit in Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' Int'l Union
of N. Am., No. 09-2245 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011). [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
Due to a dispute over firings by
Pulte, a home-builder, a union complained to the National Labor Relations
Board. It also got members to make lots of calls to Pulte and send a great many
emails to some of its execs:
. . . bombarded Pulte's sales offices and three of its executives with
thousands of phone calls and e-mails. To generate a high volume of calls, LIUNA
both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members to call Pulte. It
also encouraged its members, through postings on its website, to "fight back"
by using LIUNA's server to send e-mails to specific Pulte executives. Most of
the calls and e-mails concerned Pulte's purported unfair labor practices,
though some communications included threats and obscene language.
Yet it was the volume of the communications,
and not their content, that injured Pulte. The calls clogged access to Pulte's
voicemail system, prevented its customers from reaching its sales offices and
representatives, and even forced one Pulte employee to turn off her business
cell phone. The e-mails wreaked more havoc: they overloaded Pulte's system,
which limits the number of e-mails in an inbox; and this, in turn, stalled
normal business operations because Pulte's employees could not access
business-related e-mails of send e-mails to customers and vendors.
slip op. at 2-3.
The district court tossed Pulte's
"transmission" claim under section 1030(a)(5)(A) of CFAA on the
ground that the union didn't "intentionally cause damage" to a
"protected computer". The Sixth Circuit begged to differ, ruling that
"a transmission that weakens a sound computer system -- or, similarly, one
that diminishes a plaintiff's ability to use data or a system -- causes
damage." Id. at 7.
You may not think of tying up phone
lines or a computer network as "damage", but CFAA defines it that
way. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8) (providing that "any impairment to the
integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information" counts
Visit Peter Vogel's Internet,
Information Technology and e-Discovery Blog
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our corporate