>From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA.

They say this because (Id. at 1076):

>"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.