What would keep it from applying to an extension? It says sufficient, not necessary and sufficient.
Re:Bye bye BetterSlack
by stickfigure on Wednesday August 29, 2018 @06:46PM
(#17872754)
For one thing, the extension author is not an active participant and cannot be considered to be trespassing. A user, maybe. But I don't think we'll see Slack banning users anytime soon.
The intent is clear. I don't know the details of those decisions but Blizzard has won cases and stopped people from distributing tools that access their services in ways they don't approve of.
Re:Bye bye BetterSlack
by stickfigure on Thursday August 30, 2018 @01:48AM
(#17874347)
There may be other laws, precedents, and circumstances that are relevant. That doesn't mean that this case is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist_Inc._v._3Taps_Inc.
It seems unlikely to apply to a Chrome extension:
Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.