Hacker News Reader

I'd add that some of the WPEngine claims which have been dismissed were reaching quite a bit, e.g. that blocking WPEngine's access to wordpress.org constituted "computer hacking" under the CFAA.

View on HN

I agree, but note that the "computer hacking" (1030(a)(5)) CFAA claim survived, outright.

Only the extortion (1030(a)(7)) CFAA claim was dismissed, and it was dismissed with leave to amend.

Right. The surviving CFAA claim involves Automattic's takeover of WPEngine's plugin listing. I think this is a stronger claim, since it actually involves unauthorized access (rather than blocking access), and the judge seems to agree.

This could set a very dangerous precedent if it goes through.

As one of the people being highly critical of Matt in this thread, I actually mildly agree with this. The CFAA interpreted broadly is a terrifyingly overbroad law, and while I don't approve of the conduct of seizing the plugin (and could see, for instance, a unfair business practices claim based on it) I think I'd prefer it if the courts interpreted the CFAA narrowly enough to not include an app store updating an app with something other than what the developer put in it.

Thank you!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com