[rawdisk]

"... purpose in granting access."

"... for improper purpose, ..."

But in the 4/29/13 Order the Court says it would follow Nosal and that purpose is not enough to sustain "unauthorized access".

Instead it says Defendants' failure to cease and desist after receiving notification from the Plaintiff is the reason why it is not dismissing the CFAA claim.

If Defendants had simply "scraped" from a third party who was "authorized" to access Plaitiff's website (Google?), then perhaps the outcome here might have been different?