{"id":2004,"date":"2013-10-03T17:15:01","date_gmt":"2013-10-03T17:15:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=2004"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:59","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:59","slug":"social-media-parody-accounts-safe-from-the-cfaa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/social-media-parody-accounts-safe-from-the-cfaa\/","title":{"rendered":"Social Media Parody Accounts: Safe from the CFAA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thursday, October 3, 2013, by Benjamin Szany
\nIf you follow @Queen_UK<\/a>, @notzuckerberg<\/a>, or @FauxJohnMadden<\/a> on the popular social media website Twitter, take comfort in a ruling from the Oregon District Court which protected users of those parody accounts from litigation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 18 USC \u00a7 1030<\/a>).
\nIn an opinion issued last Thursday, September 26, 2013, the court determined that the CFAA\u2019s language of \u201cwithout authorization\u201d and \u201cexceeding authorized access\u201d does not include a defendants\u2019 use of the plaintiff\u2019s name and likeness for Facebook and Twitter accounts in violation of the terms of service of those websites. In this case, the defendants were secondary students who had allegedly created Facebook and Twitter accounts representing the likeness of Adam Matot, an assistant principal for their school. Matot argued that by violating the Facebook and Twitter\u2019s terms of service, the students had used the social media websites \u201cwithout authorization,\u201d and were therefore liable for damages under the CFAA.
\nTwitter\u2019s Parody, Commentary, and Fan Account Policy<\/a> permits parody or mimicking accounts, so long as the account does not clearly intend to \u201cdeceive or confuse.\u201d Twitter recommends that parody account users clarify the account\u2019s unofficial nature in the account\u2019s username, bio, or tweets. Twitter reserves the right to request that users make changes to these accounts for clarity\u2019s sake, and to suspend any accounts that continue to violate the policy.
\nFacebook\u2019s policy is less nuanced, but does state that \u201c[I]mposter accounts[] are not allowed on Facebook.\u201d<\/a>
\nThe Oregon District Court interpreted the CFAA in line with Ninth Circuit precedent, sticking to a narrow definition of \u201cwithout authorization.\u201d The court recognized the difference between breaking into a computer to which the user has no authorization to use for any purpose and using a computer the individual is authorized to use generally, but not in the particular way it was used. The District Court cites United States v. Nosal<\/i><\/a>, in which the Ninth Circuit shied away from an expansive reading of the CFAA\u2019s \u201cwithout authorization\u201d and \u201cexceeding authorized access\u201d phrases. The Ninth Circuit pointed out that an employee\u2019s use of a work computer to send a personal email or to browse the internet for personal entertainment could constitute use of a computer \u201cwithout authorization\u201d under a broad interpretation, and determined that such a construction of the CFAA was not what Congress had intended in 1986 when first passing the CFAA.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit pointed out that an employee\u2019s use of a work computer to send a personal email or to browse the internet for personal entertainment could constitute use of a computer \u201cwithout authorization\u201d under a broad interpretation<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Ninth Circuit noted, and the Oregon District Court acknowledged, that lies are commonplace online. Individuals lie about their age (particularly minors making Facebook or Google accounts, or persons using online dating sites) \u2013 violations of those sites\u2019 the terms of use. A broad interpretation of the CFAA\u2019s \u201cwithout authorization\u201d clause to include website terms of use would subject a significant number of computer users to litigation under a statute intent on stopping hackers.
\nFortunately for those who use work computers for personal purposes, who lie online about themselves online in violation of websites\u2019 terms of service, or who enjoy quality parody accounts on social media, the Oregon District Court dismissed Matot\u2019s CFAA claim against the students.
\nThe Oregon District Court\u2019s opinion on Lexis Advance: Matot v. CH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138327 (D. Or. Sept. 26, 2013)<\/a>.
\nFor more information relating to the authors behind popular parody accounts, and the benefits of creating a successful parody account on Twitter: Mashable \u2013 Behind the Screens of Twitter\u2019s Funniest Parody Accounts<\/a>.
\nFor non-parodied peeks at tech-related legal news, follow the North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology on Twitter at @ncjolt<\/a>.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Thursday, October 3, 2013, by Benjamin Szany If you follow @Queen_UK, @notzuckerberg, or @FauxJohnMadden on the popular social media website Twitter, take comfort in a ruling from the Oregon District Court which protected users of those parody accounts from litigation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 18 USC \u00a7 1030). In an opinion …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2004"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7569,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions\/7569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}