Ryanair’s CFAA Claim Against Booking.com Has Nothing To Do with Actual Hacking

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) is supposed to be about attacks on computer systems. It is not, as a federal district court suggested in Ryanair v. Booking.com, applicable when someone uses valid login credentials to access information to which those credentials provide access. Now that the case is on appeal, EFF has filed an amicus brief asking the Third Circuit to clarify that this case is about violations to policy, not hacking, and does not qualify as access “without authorization” under CFAA.

The case concerns transparency in airfare pricing. Ryanair complained that Booking republished Ryanair’s prices, some of which were only visible when a user logged in. Ryanair sent a cease and desist to Booking, but didn’t deactivate the usernames and passwords associated with the uses they disliked. When the users allegedly connected to Booking kept using those credentials to gather pricing data, Ryanair claimed it was a CFAA violation. If this doesn’t sound like “computer hacking” to you, you’re right.

The CFAA has proven bad for research, security, competition, and innovation. For years we’ve worked to limit its scope to Congress’s original intention: actual hacking that bypasses computer security. It should have nothing to do with Ryanair’s claims here: what amounts to a terms of use violation because the information that was accessed is available to anyone with login credentials. This is the course charted Van Buren v. United States, where the Supreme Court explained that “authorization” refers to technical concepts of computer authentication. As we stated in our brief:

The CFAA does not apply to every person who merely violates terms of service by sharing account credentials with a family member or by withholding sensitive information like one’s real name and birthdate when making an account.

Building on the good decisions in Van Buren and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, we weighed in at the Third Circuit urging the court to hold clearly that triggering a CFAA violation requires bypassing a technology that restricts access. In this case, the login credentials that were created were legit access. But the rule adopted by the lower court would criminize many everyday behaviors, like logging into a streaming service account with a partner’s login, or logging into a spouse’s bank account to pay a bill at their behest. This is not hacking or a violation of the CFAA, it’s just violating a company’s wish list in its Terms of Service.

This rule would be especially dangerous for journalists and academic researchers. Researchers often create a variety of testing accounts. For example, if they’re researching how a service displays housing offers, they may make different accounts associated with different race, gender, or language settings. These sorts of techniques may be adversarial to the company, but they shouldn’t be illegal. But according to the court’s opinion, if a company disagrees with this sort of research, the company could not just ban the researchers from using the site, it could render that research criminal by just sending a letter notifying the researcher that they’re not authorized to use the service in this way.

Many other examples and common research techniques used by journalists, academic researchers, and security researchers would be at risk under this rule, but the end result would be the same no matter what: it would chill valuable research that keeps us all safer online.

A broad reading of CFAA in this case would also undermine competition by providing a way for companies to limit data scraping, effectively cutting off one of the ways websites offer tools to compare prices and features.

Courts must follow Van Buren’s lead and interpret the CFAA as narrowly as it was designed. Logging into a public website with valid credentials, even if you scrape the data once you’re logged in, is not hacking. A broad reading leads to unintended consequences, and website owners do not need new shields against independent accountability.

You can read our amicus brief here.