直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Strategy Against Scrapers

January 2014

e-Commerce Law & Strategy

Authored by J. (Jay) T. Westermeier

Today's leading case relating to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030 (CFAA) is United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012). In the Nosal case, the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, expressed great concern over imposing criminal liability under the CFAA for violations of private computer use policies like website terms of use. The Ninth Circuit notes that if use restrictions are subject to criminal liability under the CFAA violations of those user policies could be transformed into criminal crimes simply because a computer is involved. As such, the Ninth Circuit believes the CFAA should be narrowly interpreted. Using this narrow interpretation regarding access restrictions, a district court in California found a CFAA violation in the Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 2013 WL 4447520 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013); and Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 2013 WL 1819999 (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2013), cases.

Craigslist Ruling

Even with this requirement for the CFAA to be narrowly construed, a new strategy related to the CFAA has evolved based on this Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc. case. Id. In the Craigslist case, the district court determined that Craigslist could take action to stop 3Taps from scraping and copying content from Craigslist's publicly accessible website. These actions serve as the framework for this strategy against scrapers. 3Taps used scraping activities to copy all of the content from the Craigslist website.

Craigslist took two relevant steps to stop 3Taps' scraping activities. First, Craigslist sent a cease-and-desist letter to 3Taps, informing 3Taps "that this letter notifies you and your agents, employees, affiliates, and/or anyone acting on your behalf are no longer authorized to access, and are prohibited from accessing Craigslist's website or services for any reason." The cease-and-desist letter was unambiguous. Craigslist specifically denied 3Taps authorization to access the Craigslist website for any purpose. Access to Craigslist's website was specifically prohibited for any purpose. In addition to the unequivocal cease-and-desist letter, Craigslist configured its website to block access from IP addresses associated with 3Taps. The ruling provides that 3Taps, notwithstanding the cease-and-desist letter and technological measures to bar 3Taps' access, bypassed these technological barriers by using different IP addresses and proxy servers to conceal its identity and continue scraping content from the Craigslist website.

In the Craigslist case, the district court held that where a user has been unambiguously notified that its access to a website is not authorized the user is therefore liable under the CFAA for accessing the Craigslist website without authorization.

Conclusion

Scrapers are a major concern to many content owners. The Craigslist case provides the framework for developing viable CFAA claims against scrapers using an unambiguous cease and desist letter to deny the scrapers with any authorization to access the content owner or licensee's website for any purpose. If you know the identity of companies or individuals that are scraping your website content, you should consider, among other strategies, including in your cease and desist letter to the scraper unequivocal access restrictions prohibiting any access to your website for any purpose whatsoever.

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Industries

Electrical and Computer Technology

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP