United StatesStored Communications Act (unlawful access to stored communications)
In force since .
A computer misuse rule binding public and private bodies.
- Obligation class
- Access restriction, Prohibition
As of .
What it requires
- Do not intentionally access without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided, or intentionally exceed an authorization to access that facility, and thereby obtain, alter or prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in that system (18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)).
- Access such a facility only with authorization from the person or entity providing the service or, for a communication of or intended for that user, from a user of that service (18 U.S.C. § 2701(c)(1) and (2)).
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text, as of . Also read by: Sartori v. Schrodt, No. 19-15114 (11th Cir. ) (recorded ).
If you get it wrong
Criminal exposureYes
Private right of actionYes
Criminal exposure note
A fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years for a first offense committed for commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, private commercial gain, or in furtherance of a criminal or tortious act (not more than 10 years for a subsequent one), and a fine or imprisonment for not more than 1 year for any other first offense (18 U.S.C. § 2701(b)).
Statutory damages
18 U.S.C. § 2707(c): the sum of the actual damages and the violator's profits, but never less than $1,000, with punitive damages for a willful or intentional violation; a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs are also available under § 2707(b)(3).
- As of
- Currency
- USD
- Per person minimum
- 1,000
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Criminal punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 2701(b), and civil actions brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(a) by a provider, subscriber or other aggrieved person.
Settledness
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff waived his arguments about the laptop and the Gmail account and the defendant was not without authorization to access the Skype account she created and co-owned.
- As of
- Case link
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca11-19-15114/pdf/USCOURTS-ca11-19-15114-0.pdf
- Case citation
- Sartori v. Schrodt, No. 19-15114 (11th Cir. )
- Open questions
- Are previously opened emails kept in "electronic storage" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a), a question the Eleventh Circuit in Sartori v. Schrodt did not consider?
What this law does
The Stored Communications Act makes it a federal offense to intentionally access without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided, or to intentionally exceed an authorization to access that facility, and thereby obtain, alter or prevent authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in that system.
A first offense committed for commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, private commercial gain, or in furtherance of a criminal or tortious act is punished by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, and any other first offense by a fine or imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
The offense does not apply to conduct authorized by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service, by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user, or under section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of Title 18. A provider of electronic communication service, a subscriber or another person aggrieved by a violation committed with a knowing or intentional state of mind may bring a civil action for such relief as may be appropriate.
Damages are the actual damages plus the violator's profits, but never less than $1,000, and the court may assess punitive damages if the violation is willful or intentional. The chapter was added by Public Law 99-508 in 1986 and took effect ninety days after the date of enactment of that Act. The Eleventh Circuit held in Sartori v. Schrodt that the creator and co-owner of an online account is authorized to access it. That court did not reach whether opened emails are kept in electronic storage under the Act.
How courts have read itPremium data
Our analysis of this law draws on 8 court rulings.
What each ruling held, what it means for an app, and whether it still stands are premium data, in the Plus, Pro and Enterprise plans.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app crawls the web.