EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
318 F.3d 58 (2003)

- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
EF Cultural Travel BV (plaintiff) and Explorica, Inc. (defendant) ran competing student-travel businesses. Explorica was started by several former EF employees. EF’s website allowed users to search its tour database and view tour prices that met specified criteria such as length and departure city. Explorica competed with EF by copying EF’s prices from its website and setting Explorica’s prices slightly lower. Explorica hired Zefer Corp. (defendant) to build a scraper tool to take the prices from EF’s website and download them into an Excel spreadsheet. EF discovered what Explorica was doing and sued it and Zefer in federal district court for violations of copyright and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Under the act, a plaintiff could sue a defendant for unauthorized use of a website. EF claimed that the scraper tool constituted unauthorized use under the act because it went beyond the reasonable expectations of ordinary users. The district court agreed and found that a lack of authorization could be inferred from the circumstances, using reasonable expectations as the test. Based on this test, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Zefer from using the scraper tool to collect EF’s pricing information. Zefer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boudin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.