Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...[o]btains information from a protected computer without authorization . . . [or] [c]auses the transmission of a program, code, or command to a protected computer without authorization . . . caus[ing] harm or loss . . . is liable to. . . the owner of information stored in the protected computer.” Fla. Stat. § 668.803(1) & (2) (emphasis added)....

...Stat. § 668.802(6). Compulife doesn’t attempt to argue that the defendants penetrated a “technological access barrier.” Instead, Compulife maintains that this showing was unnecessary because it did not allege a violation of Fla. Stat. § 668.803(3)— which imposes liability for “[t]raffic[king] in any technological access barrier through which access to a protected computer may be obtained without authorization”—but only of § 668.803(1) & (2)....

... Case: 18-12004 Date Filed: 05/20/2020 Page: 53 of 53 subsections (1) & (2)—is statutorily defined as one that can be accessed only “by employing a technological access barrier.” Fla. Stat. § 668.802(6). All CADRA violations—not just those arising under § 668.803(3)—therefore require proof of access through a “technological access barrier.” Compulife’s undisputed failure to prove the presence of a “technological access barrier” is fatal to its claim....

...SkyHop responded by suing Indyzen in the Southern Dis- trict of Florida. SkyHop raised six causes of action, including three claims under the CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030; one claim under the Flor- ida CADRA, Fla. Stat. § 668.803; and two claims seeking a declara- tory judgment concerning the arbitrability of the dispute. Indyzen moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for improper venue....