Opinion ID: 215637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: arbitrary enforcement

Text: If every employee who used a computer for personal reasons and in violation of her employer's computer use policy were guilty of a federal crime, the CFAA would lend itself to arbitrary enforcement, rendering it unconstitutionally vague. In United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.2009), the question before the district court was whether an intentional breach of an Internet website's terms of service, without more, is sufficient to constitute a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA; and, if so, would the statute, as so interpreted, survive constitutional challenges on the grounds of vagueness and related doctrines. Drew, 259 F.R.D. at 451. In holding that the government's interpretation of the CFAA would render § 1030(a)(2)(C) unconstitutionally vague, the court explained that: if every [breach of an Internet website's terms of service] does qualify [as a violation of the CFAA], then there is absolutely no limitation or criteria as to which of the breaches should merit criminal prosecution. All manner of situations will be covered. . . . All can be prosecuted. Given the `standardless sweep' that results, federal law enforcement entities would be improperly free to `pursue their personal predilections.' Drew, 259 F.R.D. at 467 (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). The majority's reading of § 1030(a)(4) similarly renders § 1030(a)(2)(C) unconstitutionally vague.