## Facts

- Wall Street on Demand, Inc. (WSOD) provided financial-services clients tools that sent SMS “Watch List Alert” text messages to end-users.
- Brenda Czech alleged she began receiving unsolicited WSOD text messages after obtaining a new cellular plan and continued receiving them as recently as February 2008.
- Czech alleged she incurred unspecified fees or charges from receiving the messages but did not plead an amount or attach billing documentation.
- She alleged the messages stopped only after her attorney contacted WSOD.
- Czech claimed WSOD’s texts resulted in WSOD obtaining information associated with her phone/number (e.g., that the number was active, within an area code’s geography, and capable of receiving future texts).
- She also alleged the texts used some portion of her phone’s storage, bandwidth, memory, and operational capacity.

## Issues

1. Whether sending unsolicited text messages to a cellular phone plausibly alleges “access” without authorization and “obtaining information” under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).
2. Whether the alleged cell-phone charges and device-resource usage plausibly allege CFAA “damage” and “loss,” including the statutory $5,000 loss threshold for a civil action under § 1030(g).
3. After dismissal of the federal claims, whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

## Decision

- The court granted WSOD’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to all CFAA claims and dismissed them with prejudice.
- The court concluded Czech failed to plead facts showing WSOD “obtained information” from her phone within the meaning of § 1030(a)(2)(C).
- The court concluded Czech failed to plead CFAA-defined “damage” or qualifying “loss,” including facts supporting the $5,000 threshold, for claims under § 1030(a)(5)(A) and § 1030(a)(5)(C).
- Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state-law trespass-to-chattels and unjust-enrichment claims without prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under Twombly/Iqbal, a complaint must plead sufficient nonconclusory facts to make statutory liability plausible; courts need not accept legal conclusions.
- For § 1030(a)(2)(C), allegations must plausibly show unauthorized access to a protected computer and that the defendant “obtained information” in the sense contemplated by the CFAA, not merely information inherently conveyed by successful message delivery.
- For § 1030(a)(5), “damage” requires impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information; minor device-resource consumption from receiving messages is not enough without plausible impairment allegations.
- For a civil CFAA claim under § 1030(g), the plaintiff must plausibly plead qualifying “loss” (e.g., response, assessment, restoration costs, or interruption-of-service losses) and satisfy the statutory threshold (including at least $5,000 in loss within a one-year period when that factor is invoked).
- Article III injury-in-fact (standing) does not substitute for meeting the CFAA’s statutory elements and definitions.
- When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, courts generally should dismiss supplemental state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

## Conclusion

The court held that unsolicited text messaging, without plausible allegations of CFAA-type data theft, system impairment, or statutorily defined loss meeting the $5,000 threshold, does not state a civil claim under the CFAA; it dismissed the CFAA claims with prejudice and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction.


Czech v. Wall St. on Demand, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Minn. 2009)