Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

which it has read the statute to contain such limitations— 
to the contrary, Van Buren cites instances where it hasn’t. 
See Reply Brief 14–15, 17 (collecting cases); cf. Sandvig v. 
Barr, 451 F. Supp. 3d 73, 81–82 (DC 2020) (discussing De-
partment of Justice testimony indicating that the Govern-
ment could “ ‘bring a CFAA prosecution based’ ” on terms-
of-service violations causing “ ‘de minimis harm’ ”).  If any-
thing,  the  Government’s  current  CFAA  charging  policy
shows  why  Van  Buren’s  concerns  are  far  from  “hypothet-
ical,” post, at 12: The policy instructs that federal prosecu-
tion “may not be warranted”—not that it would be prohib-
ited—“if the defendant exceed[s] authorized access solely by 
violating  an  access  restriction  contained  in  a  contractual 
agreement or term of service with an Internet service pro-
vider or website.”12  And while the Government insists that 
the intent requirement serves as yet another safety valve,
that requirement would do nothing for those who intention-
ally use their computers in a way their “job or policy pro-
hibits”—for  example,  by  checking  sports  scores  or  paying 
bills at work.  App. 39.

One final observation: The Government’s approach would 
inject arbitrariness into the assessment of criminal liabil-
ity.  The Government concedes, as it must, that the “exceeds 
authorized  access”  clause  prohibits  only  unlawful  infor-
mation “access,” not downstream information “ ‘misus[e].’ ”  
Brief  in  Opposition  17  (statute  does  not  cover  “ ‘subse-
quen[t] misus[e of] information’ ”).  But the line between the 
—————— 

12 Memorandum  from  U. S.  Atty.  Gen.  to  U. S.  Attys.  &  Assistant
Attys.  Gen.  for  the  Crim.  &  Nat.  Security  Divs.,  Intake  and  Charging 
Policy  for  Computer  Crime  Matters  5  (Sept.  11,  2014),  https://www. 
justice.gov/criminal-ccips/file/904941/download  (emphasis  added).    Alt-
hough the Government asserts that it has “[h]istorically” prosecuted only 
“core conduct” like Van Buren’s and not the commonplace violations that
Van Buren fears, Brief for United States 40, the contrary examples Van
Buren and his amici cite give reason to balk at that assurance.  See Brief 
for Petitioner 32–33; Brief for Orin Kerr as Amicus Curiae 18–23; Brief 
for Technology Companies as Amici Curiae 11.