[2] In the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, the courts upheld a broad view of the statement, that accessing a computer with authorization but for an improper purpose is a violation of the CFAA.

For cybersecurity practitioners, a narrow interpretation of "exceeds authorized access" language in §1030(a)(2) would allow them to better conduct work identifying and resolving security problems with computer hardware and software as to make the Internet safer.

Law enforcement and the U.S. government in general prefer a broader interpretation as this allows them to prosecute those who use hacking to bring down or take advantage of insecure systems under the CFAA.

[3] There are additional concerns as the language of CFAA, if broadly interpreted, could apply to commonly-accepted activities at businesses or elsewhere, such as using office computers for browsing the web.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford University who represents the petitioner in the present case, states that the law's language is outdated with modern computer usage, and its broad interpretation "[makes] a crime out of ordinary breaches of computer restrictions and terms of service that people likely don’t even know about and if they did would have no reason to think would be a federal crime.

"[3] Police officer Nathan Van Buren, from Cumming, Georgia, was in need of money and asked a man, Andrew Albo, for help.

The majority opinion distinguished this from Van Buren's case, in that the information that he obtained was within the limits of what he could access with his authorization, but was done for improper reasons, and thus he could not be charged under CFAA for this crime.

The Ninth Circuit had relied on the interpretation of CFAA that as LinkedIn's data was publicly available, Microsoft could not stop hiQ from collecting it even at a massive scale beyond the capabilities of a human.