Well, in the video of the hearing you posted earlier hiQ's counsel said an IP block is not akin to a password. The court added that IP addresses do not identify people. As such IP blocks ban computers not people. There was also suggestion that the "access control" only relates to the manner of access; people can easily change IP addresses. The court seemed to agree with that argument. hiQ's counsel argued that a "gates up, gates down" analysis is not appropriate because in this case "there is no gate" (or at least, the gate was up from the beginning). Again, the court seemed to agree.

Watching that hearing it seemed clear to me the court understands the dangers of letting tech companies use the threat of CFAA's criminal culpability against www users or competitors. One justice made the point that when the CFAA was passed there was no www. The court questioned how public web servers could be comparable to "private" government computers.