## Facts

- iParadigms operated Turnitin, an online service that evaluates the originality of written works to prevent plagiarism.
- Participating schools required students to submit assignments through Turnitin’s web system or integrated course-management tools.
- Turnitin compared each submitted paper against archived student submissions, commercial databases, and internet content.
- Turnitin stored submitted student papers in its database to enable future similarity comparisons.
- Four high school students alleged Turnitin’s archiving of their papers without permission infringed their copyrights.
- Three students submitted papers under school policies conditioning course credit on Turnitin submission.
- One student (A.V.) submitted a paper using a password obtained online, rather than as part of a school requirement.
- iParadigms asserted counterclaims against A.V. for unauthorized access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (VCCA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to iParadigms on copyright infringement (fair use) and enforced the clickwrap agreement, but granted summary judgment against iParadigms on the CFAA and VCCA counterclaims for lack of actual or economic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether archiving student papers in Turnitin’s database for plagiarism detection is fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
2. Whether Turnitin’s clickwrap agreement was enforceable against the student users.
3. Whether iParadigms presented sufficient evidence of cognizable loss or economic damages to proceed under the CFAA, including costs incurred responding to alleged unauthorized access.
4. Whether iParadigms presented sufficient evidence of recoverable damages under the VCCA, including consequential damages.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for iParadigms on the students’ copyright claim, holding Turnitin’s archiving was fair use.
- Affirmed enforcement of the clickwrap agreement.
- Reversed summary judgment against iParadigms on its CFAA and VCCA counterclaims.
- Remanded for further proceedings on the CFAA and VCCA counterclaims.

## Legal Principles

- Fair use may apply when a use is transformative because it serves a function unrelated to exploiting the work’s expressive content; using works for automated text comparison to detect plagiarism can be transformative.
- Commercial operation does not bar fair use; it is a factor but not dispositive.
- Copying an entire work may be permissible when necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose of the use (here, accurate similarity comparison).
- Market harm under the fourth fair-use factor focuses on substitution for protected markets; copyright does not protect a market for improper reuse by later students.
- A clickwrap agreement is generally enforceable when users receive notice of terms and manifest assent by clicking acceptance to access the service.
- Under the CFAA, cognizable loss can include reasonable response costs (e.g., investigating, assessing, and addressing an intrusion), not only direct revenue loss.
- Under the VCCA, consequential damages may be recoverable for unauthorized computer access when supported by evidence sufficient to reach a factfinder.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that Turnitin’s retention of student papers for plagiarism detection constituted fair use and that its clickwrap terms were enforceable, but it revived iParadigms’ CFAA and VCCA counterclaims because response and consequential costs can qualify as recoverable damages, requiring further proceedings on remand.


A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009)