[relevant_thing]

False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016):

>From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA.

They say this because (Id. at 1076):

>"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.

[ransom1538]

Interesting. TOS can't be a 'catch all'. There needs to be another criminal intent. But, wouldn't using the plugin to avoid paying for the service be the other crime? Seems like two crimes? Which would satisfy?

http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...