Moxie Pest Control (Utah), et al. v. Nielsen, et al.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed in Part
The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Moxie’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) claim, holding that investigative costs qualify as "loss" even when no technological damage is shown. It affirmed discovery and RICO rulings, but reversed in part on DTSA/UTSA claims, allowing them to proceed for reasonable-royalty and injunctive relief, and remanded for further proceedings.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the CFAA’s statutory “loss” requirement (§ 1030(e)(11)) is satisfied by reasonable investigative costs that are not tied to technological harm.
Circuit Positions
Investigative/response costs qualify as CFAA loss; no technological harm required.
Loss must involve technological harm; investigative costs alone are insufficient.
Conflict Summary
The Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh, and now Tenth Circuits read § 1030(e)(11) broadly, allowing investigative or response costs as qualifying loss even without system damage. The Ninth Circuit, post-Van Buren, construes loss narrowly, limiting it to technological harms, thereby excluding mere investigative expenditures.