## Facts

- Bell Aerospace provided helicopter maintenance services in Ozark, Alabama.
- Bell terminated its Vice President of Operations, Hartwell “Willy” Wilson; Wilson and Steve Matherly later formed U.S. Aero, a competing business.
- U.S. Aero hired seven former Bell employees (individual defendants) who previously had individualized usernames and passwords for Bell’s computer systems.
- Bell alleged that, while still employed, the individual defendants copied, emailed, or removed Bell’s confidential information and trade secrets (including customer and pricing data) from Bell’s computer systems for use at U.S. Aero.
- Bell sued U.S. Aero, Wilson, Matherly, and the seven former employees asserting a federal claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and multiple Alabama state-law claims, including misappropriation under the Alabama Trade Secrets Act and related tort and contract theories.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether employees with employer-granted computer credentials act “without authorization” or “exceed authorized access” under the CFAA when they access company systems for allegedly disloyal or competitive purposes.
2. Whether the record created genuine disputes of material fact sufficient to send the Alabama trade secret and related state-law claims to a factfinder.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the CFAA claims.
- The court held that the individual defendants had “authorization” under the CFAA because they were employees with permission to access the computers at the time of access; allegedly improper purpose or use did not convert authorized access into unauthorized access.
- The court denied summary judgment in part on state-law claims, allowing Bell’s Alabama Trade Secrets Act and related tort/contract claims to proceed where factual disputes remained.

## Legal Principles

- Under the CFAA, “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” are construed narrowly and turn on whether access rights were granted or withdrawn, not on an employee’s alleged disloyal intent.
- Because the CFAA is a criminal statute with civil remedies, ambiguity in its scope is resolved narrowly under the rule of lenity.
- Courts should not use agency-law concepts of employee loyalty to expand CFAA liability where the employer has provided access credentials and has not rescinded access.
- Alleged misuse of confidential business information by employees with authorized access is commonly addressed through state trade secret, contract, and tort remedies rather than the CFAA.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Bell’s CFAA claims because the employees accessed company computers with permission at the time, rejecting a disloyalty-based theory of “unauthorized” access, but allowed Bell to continue pursuing trade secret and related state-law claims based on disputed facts concerning alleged misappropriation and use of confidential information.


Bell Aerospace Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Aero Servs., Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2010)