569.095. Tampering with computer data — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of tampering with computer data if he or she knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization:
(1) Modifies or destroys data or programs residing or existing internal to a computer, computer system, or computer network; or
(2) Modifies or destroys data or programs or supporting documentation residing or existing external to a computer, computer system, or computer network; or
(3) Discloses or takes data, programs, or supporting documentation, residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network; or
(4) Discloses or takes a password, identifying code, personal identification number, or other confidential information about a computer system or network that is intended to or does control access to the computer system or network;
(5) Accesses a computer, a computer system, or a computer network, and intentionally examines information about another person;
(6) Receives, retains, uses, or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in violation of this subsection.
2. The offense of tampering with computer data is a class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed for the purpose of devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain any property, the value of which is seven hundred fifty dollars or more, in which case it is a class E felony.
Notes of Decisions
W. Blue Print Co. v. Roberts, 367 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 4× “ge the circuit court erred in failing to grant their motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing Western Blue failed to make a submissible case that: (1) Myrna breached her fiduciary duty to Western Blue; (2) Myrna tortiously interfered with…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (E.D. Mo. 1998).
· cites it 5× “1 provides, in pertinent part: In addition to any other civil remedy available, the owner or lessee of the computer system, computer network, computer program, computer service or data may bring a civil action against any person who violates sections 569.095 to 569.099, RSMo,…”
Anzaldua v. Ne. Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. Mo. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Mo.Rev.Stat. § 569.095. Tampering with computer data occurs when, among other things, a person takes a password that is intended to or does control access to the computer system or network; or receives, retains, uses or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in…”
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Wolf, 710 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
“The Pagedale Board of Aldermen concluded that this action constituted a violation or attempted violation of § 569.095 Cum.Supp.1986, tampering with intellectual property, and § 575.”
John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corp., 126 F.4th 1329 (8th Cir. 2025).
“402 (1), the Computer Tampering Act, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.095 , and several breach of contract claims.”
Foley Indus., Inc. v. Nelson, No. 4:21-cv-00309 (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2022).
· cites it 10× “525 of the MCTA provides a civil remedy for violations of § 569.095, RSMo. Section 537.525 provides: In addition to any other civil remedy available, the owner or lessee of the computer system, computer network, computer program, computer service or data may bring a civil action…”
Maritz Holdings Inc. v. Cognizant Tech. Solutions U.S. Corp., No. 4:18-cv-00826, 2019 WL 6910051 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2019).
· cites it 8× “§ 1030 , one violation of the Missouri Computer Tampering Statute (MCTS), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.095 , and one count each of conversion, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.”
Advanced Physical Therapy, LLC v. Apex Physical Therapy, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-03043 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 16, 2021).
· cites it 5× “Section 569.095, RSMo, establishes “the offense of tampering with computer data” as: “knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization: (1) Modifies or destroys data or programs residing or existing internal to a…”
Shuttlewagon, Inc. v. Scott Higgins, 628 S.W.3d 185 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “525 (which is referenced in Shuttlewagon's amended petition, but not cited in Shuttlewagon's appellate brief) does authorize a civil action to recover compensatory damages and attorney's fees if a criminal violation of section 569.095 to section 569.099 is established.”
Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hosp., No. 4:19-cv-00075 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2022).
· cites it 4× “§ 569.095 or § 569.099.2 Defendants reply that compensatory damages have been pled on the face of their counterclaims (see Doc.”
Garrett v. Rutter & Sleeth Law Offices, No. 2:19-cv-04203 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 20, 2020).
· cites it 4× “§ 569.095. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that no attorney-client privileged information is contained in the Work Record and that Plaintiff did not violate any criminal laws.”
Tumey L.L.P. v. Mycroft AI Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00113 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2021).
· cites it 4× “; (5) computer tampering in violation of § 569.095, Rev. Stat. Mo.; (6) Breach of Computer Security in violation of Tex.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.095(3): 1 case
Weisman v. Barnes Jewish Hosp., No. 4:19-cv-00075 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2022).
“§ 569.095 or § 569.099.2 Defendants reply that compensatory damages have been pled on the face of their counterclaims (see Doc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.