COMPLAINT FOR:
1) VIOLATION OF COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.);
2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.);
3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.);
4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT, PENAL CODE §§ 631, 637.2;
5) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.;
6) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS;
7) COMMON LAW FRAUD; and
8) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
Thanks, though I'm a little suspicious when I see this:
2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.);
3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.);
You'd think one or the other, no? (AFAIK Superfish didn't touch anything even remotely covered by SCA). This looks like classic "all of the torts" shotgun filing. Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a guide as to what criminal cases would be viable.
>Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a guide as to what criminal cases would be viable.
But that is the guide book for criminal proceedings against individuals. The prosecutor dog piles on every single charge they can and then offers a scaled down plea bargain.
Not a lawyer but quoting from the document.