Opinion ID: 784889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trespass to Chattels

Text: 200 Following the lead of a few courts that have breathed new life into the common law cause of action for trespass to chattels by finding it viable online, 54 Register.com urges this Court to do the same. The issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Register.com preliminary injunctive relief based on its trespass to chattels claim. 201 The pertinent facts are as follows: (1) Verio intentionally employed its search robot to make successive queries to Register.com's WHOIS database; (2) the search robot used Register.com's computer systems and WHOIS database, and thereby consumed some capacity of those systems; (3) the systems have finite capacity; 55 and (4) since at least the initiation of this lawsuit, Verio was not authorized to use its search robot to access Register.com's computer systems. 56 202 The trespass to chattels tort action in New York is based upon principles set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. A trespass to chattel occurs when a party intentionally damages or interferes with the use of property belonging to another. City of Amsterdam v. Goldreyer, Ltd., 882 F.Supp. 1273, 1281 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 217-221 (1965)) (emphases added). Interference may be accomplished by dispossessing another of the chattel or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 217. Traditionally, courts have drawn a distinction between interference by dispossession, Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 217(a), which does not require a showing of actual damages, id., § 218 cmt. d, 57 and interference by unauthorized use or intermeddling, id., § 217(b), which requires a showing of actual damages, id., § 218 cmt. e. 58 See City of Amsterdam, 882 F.Supp. at 1281 (`One who uses a chattel with the consent of another is subject to liability in trespass for any harm to the chattel which is caused by or occurs in the course of any use exceeding the consent, even though such use is not a conversion.') (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 256) (emphasis added); see generally Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 218-220 and comments thereto (indicating when a trespasser may be held liable). 203 Here, Verio likely committed a trespass by using a search robot to access Register.com's computer systems without authorization to do so, consuming the computer systems' capacity. By virtue of its use of a software robot, coupled with the probability of like use by others, Verio could interfere with Register.com's use of its own systems. Relying on the eBay decision for the proposition that any interference with an owner's use of a portion of its property causes injury to the owner, the district court concluded that evidence of mere possessory interference is sufficient to demonstrate the quantum of harm necessary to establish a claim for trespass to chattels. Register.com, 126 F.Supp.2d at 250 (citing eBay, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1071); 59 see also CompuServe, 962 F.Supp. at 1022-23 ([A]ny value CompuServe realizes from its computer equipment is wholly derived from the extent to which that equipment can serve its subscriber base.). 60 Unauthorized consumption of Register.com's computer systems' capacity depletes the capacity available at a given time for authorized end-users, which may diminish[] the condition, quality, or value of the systems. eBay, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1071 (citing CompuServe, 962 F.Supp. at 1022). More importantly, as the district court found, Verio's unauthorized use of its software robot poses risks to the integrity of Register.com's systems due to potential congestion and overload problems. Register.com has demonstrated to the district court that these risks are real and potentially disruptive of its operations, and that, absent injunctive relief, there is a strong probability that various entities not party to the litigation would engage in similar trespassory activity. We have no reason to disturb these findings. 204 Therefore, we hold that the district court acted within its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief on this claim because (1) Register.com's computer systems are valuable resources of finite capacity, (2) unauthorized use of such systems depletes the capacity available to authorized end-users, (3) unauthorized use of such systems by software robot creates risks of congestion and overload that may disrupt Register.com's operations, and (4) the district court found a strong likelihood that Register.com would suffer irreparable harm absent such relief. See Register.com, 126 F.Supp.2d at 250-51; see also eBay, 100 F.Supp.2d at 1071-72 (same). The last factor is central to our holding. 205 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction on this claim to the extent that the injunction prohibits Verio from accessing Register.com's computer systems by unauthorized use of a software robot. On remand, we direct the district court to modify the third paragraph of its injunction to enjoin Verio only from Accessing Register.com's computers and computer networks by unauthorized software programs performing multiple, automated, successive queries. We do not believe the trespass to chattels claim supports the broader language employed by the district court in that paragraph of the injunction.