NRS
205.4765 Unlawful acts regarding computers: Generally.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6, a person who knowingly, willfully and without authorization:
(a) Modifies;
(b) Damages;
(c) Destroys;
(d) Discloses;
(e) Uses;
(f) Transfers;
(g) Conceals;
(h) Takes;
(i) Retains possession of;
(j) Copies;
(k) Obtains or attempts to obtain access to,
permits access to or causes to be accessed; or
(l) Enters,
Ê data, a
program or any supporting documents which exist inside or outside a computer,
system or network is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6, a person who knowingly, willfully and without authorization:
(a) Modifies;
(b) Destroys;
(c) Uses;
(d) Takes;
(e) Damages;
(f) Transfers;
(g) Conceals;
(h) Copies;
(i) Retains possession of; or
(j) Obtains or attempts to obtain access to,
permits access to or causes to be accessed,
Ê equipment or
supplies that are used or intended to be used in a computer, system or network
is guilty of a misdemeanor.
3. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6, a person who knowingly, willfully and without authorization:
(a) Destroys;
(b) Damages;
(c) Takes;
(d) Alters;
(e) Transfers;
(f) Discloses;
(g) Conceals;
(h) Copies;
(i) Uses;
(j) Retains possession of; or
(k) Obtains or attempts to obtain access to,
permits access to or causes to be accessed,
Ê a computer,
system or network is guilty of a misdemeanor.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6, a person who knowingly, willfully and without authorization:
(a) Obtains and discloses;
(b) Publishes;
(c) Transfers; or
(d) Uses,
Ê a device
used to access a computer, network or data is guilty of a misdemeanor.
5. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6, a person who knowingly, willfully and without authorization
introduces, causes to be introduced or attempts to introduce a computer
contaminant into a computer, system or network is guilty of a misdemeanor.
6. If the violation of any provision of
this section:
(a) Was committed to devise or execute a scheme
to defraud or illegally obtain property;
(b) Caused response costs, loss, injury or other
damage in excess of $500; or
(c) Caused an interruption or impairment of a public
service, including, without limitation, a governmental operation, a system of
public communication or transportation or a supply of water, gas or
electricity,
Ê the person
is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130, and may be further punished by
a fine of not more than $100,000. In addition to any other penalty, the court
shall order the person to pay restitution.
7. The provisions of this section do not
apply to a person performing any testing, including, without limitation,
penetration testing, of an information system of an agency that uses the
equipment or services of the Governor’s Technology Office within the Office of
the Governor that is authorized by the Chief Information Officer or the Deputy
Director of the Office of Information Security and Cyber Defense of the
Governor’s Technology Office. As used in this subsection:
(a) “Information system” has the meaning ascribed
to it in NRS 242.057.
(b) “Penetration testing” has the meaning
ascribed to it in NRS 242.171.
(Added to NRS by 1983,
1203; A 1991,
50; 1995,
1228; 1999,
2707; 2001,
1240; 2011,
1862; 2023,
3554; 2025,
1959, 3566)
Notes of Decisions
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Nev. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 502 ; (4) violation of the Nevada Computer Crimes Law, NRS § 205.4765; (5) breach of contract; (6) inducement of breach of contract; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (9)…”
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 502 ; (4) violation of the Nevada Computer Crimes Law ("NCCL"), NRS § 205.4765 ; (5) breach of contract; (6) inducement of breach of contract; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; *1162 (8) negligent interference with prospective…”
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (D. Nev. 2014).
“§§ 1030 (a)(2)(C), (a)(4), & (a)(5); (3) violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”), CaLPenal Code § 502; (4) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 205.4765; (5) breach of contract; (6) inducement of breach of contract; (7) intentional…”
Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1086 (D. Nev. 2014).
“Penal Code § 502; (4) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) § 205.4765; (5) breach of contract; (6) inducement of breach of contract; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (9)…”
NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC (D. Nev. 2022).
· cites it 14× “21 NLRK contends that Defendants’ counterclaim under NRS § 205.4765 should be dismissed 22 || because Defendants failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim under the statute.”
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 8× “§ 1030 ) and Nevada’s Unlawful Acts Regarding Computers and 7 Information Services statute (NRS § 205.4765). They argue that Banq fails to meet Rule 9(b)’s 8 heightened pleading standard applicable to these claims, fails to allege that the defendants’ 9 computer access was…”
NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC (D. Nev. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Unlawful Acts re: Computers under NRS 205.4765 (Indoor vs NLRK) 10 Under the Nevada Computer Crimes Law (NCCL), a person who “knowingly, willfully 11 and without authorization” “(a) Modifies; (b) Damages; (c) Destroys; (d) Discloses; (e) Uses; 12 (f) Transfers; (g) Conceals; (h)…”
Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “(citing NRS § 205.4765(1)).) Because Tripp admitted during his 10 deposition that he shared information with Lopez he was not authorized to share with her 11 (see, e.”
ImageKeeper LLC v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Servs. LLC (D. Nev. 2021).
“050; (4) breach of contract; (5) violation of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”); (6) 19 violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”); (7) unlawful acts regarding 20 computers in violation of NRS 205.4765, 205.477, and NRS 205.511; (8) deceptive trade 21 practices…”
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2023).
“Banq asserts 18 claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and violations of Nevada Revised Statutes 19 § 205.4765 against all defendants based on the same course of conduct.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4765(1) — 3 cases
Tesla, Inc. v. Tripp (D. Nev. 2020).
“(citing NRS § 205.4765(1)).) Because Tripp admitted during his 10 deposition that he shared information with Lopez he was not authorized to share with her 11 (see, e.”
NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC (D. Nev. 2022).
“21 NLRK contends that Defendants’ counterclaim under NRS § 205.4765 should be dismissed 22 || because Defendants failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim under the statute.”
NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC (D. Nev. 2023).
“Unlawful Acts re: Computers under NRS 205.4765 (Indoor vs NLRK) 10 Under the Nevada Computer Crimes Law (NCCL), a person who “knowingly, willfully 11 and without authorization” “(a) Modifies; (b) Damages; (c) Destroys; (d) Discloses; (e) Uses; 12 (f) Transfers; (g) Conceals; (h)…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4765(1)(g) — 2 cases
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025).
“§ 1030 ) and Nevada’s Unlawful Acts Regarding Computers and 7 Information Services statute (NRS § 205.4765). They argue that Banq fails to meet Rule 9(b)’s 8 heightened pleading standard applicable to these claims, fails to allege that the defendants’ 9 computer access was…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4765(2) — 1 case
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025).
“§ 1030 ) and Nevada’s Unlawful Acts Regarding Computers and 7 Information Services statute (NRS § 205.4765). They argue that Banq fails to meet Rule 9(b)’s 8 heightened pleading standard applicable to these claims, fails to allege that the defendants’ 9 computer access was…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4765(3) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.4765(4) — 1 case
Banq, Inc. v. Purcell (D. Nev. 2025).
“§ 1030 ) and Nevada’s Unlawful Acts Regarding Computers and 7 Information Services statute (NRS § 205.4765). They argue that Banq fails to meet Rule 9(b)’s 8 heightened pleading standard applicable to these claims, fails to allege that the defendants’ 9 computer access was…”
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.