[rawdisk]

"... or even just violating your terms of use, CFAA is merely the statute that enables that."

Are you sure? The Court in the 4/29/13 Order says violating terms of use would not be enough to sustain a CFAA claim. See page 6.

It is interesting how the Plaintiff changed the TOU after the "unauthorized access" and how the copyright claims were dismissed early.

The Defendents made a mistake by ignoring the C&D letter - that opened up the potential for CFAA liability. But I'm not sure they made a mistake in believing they could copy and serve the same classifieds. It appears they could if they obtained them through a third party.