91视频

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently sent a wave of uncertainty through the employment law sector with its interpretation of how broadly protections under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) should reach.

Its ruling stemmed from a case in which David Nosal, a former employee of a Los Angeles-based executive search firm called Korn/Ferry International, persuaded co-workers from the firm to access the company鈥檚 customer lists and give them to Nosal so he could start his own business.

The 5th, 7th and 11^th circuit court rulings on the case agreed that Nosal violated the CFAA by accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud. The 9th Circuit disagreed, noting that the employees who accessed the computer were authorized to use it and therefore did not violate the law.

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit went on to say that the law is intended to target hackers, and a broader application of it would make it illegal to play games, chat with friends or shop online on company computers.

Mitch Baker, a partner in Fisher & Phillips鈥� Portland office, defends employers in labor and employment law matters at both the state and federal levels. He explains that the previous rulings focused on the fact that the company鈥檚 computer was used to provide proprietary information to a competitor. The 9^th Circuit ruling states that if someone is authorized to access that computer, no law has been violated regardless of how the information is used, Baker says.

鈥淭his ruling takes away a tool we鈥檝e used to keep people from taking information they aren鈥檛 supposed to take from their employer and using it against them,鈥� he says.

The CFAA is still a valuable tool to get documents returned to employers because it offers protection for trade secrets and other proprietary information.

鈥淏ut what I don鈥檛 have now is that threat of criminal prosecution,鈥� Baker says.

With split decisions among the circuit courts, it鈥檚 likely the issue will now head to the U.S. Supreme Court.