The Nosal decision apposite here was superseded by Van Buren, a SCOTUS decision that, if I'm reading your comment here right, explicitly refutes your interpretation. I think?

Also in the Ninth Circuit: Amazon.com Services v. Perplexity AI.

I really don't see how you can synthesize "intentionally accesses" and/or "knowingly and with intent to defraud" out of recklessness or negligence. Those are very different concepts in the law.