In the eternal battle between students and administrators, it's not unusual for social media to enter the mix these days. Even way back in 2008, a judge had to rule that students could justly be suspended for a parody MySpace account of their principal. However, having the subject of a fake social media account actually try to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) against the fakers remains a rarity.

This year, Oregon high school principal Adam Matot did just that. After students took to social media using his name and likeness to post some obscene materials, Matot filed suit against the students and their parents. Matot and his attorney argued the incident constituted defamation and negligent supervision while also falling under the CFAA. The premise for Matot's CFAA claim was based on the students using protected computers in a way that "exceeded authorized access," according to court documents (PDF).

Last week, however, a judge in an Oregon district court granted a defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The court found that previous rulings frowned on this CFAA theory (particularly when restrictions are in a user agreement, noted Venkat Balasubramani on the blog of law professor and occasional Ars contributor Eric Goldman). So the claim was ultimately rejected.

The CFAA and its broad interpretations have been the subject of much debate in the last year. In August, a judge ruled that something as easy as changing your IP address to access a public website could be found as a CFAA violation (and this was one of the foundations for the Aaron Swartz prosecution). Yet earlier in the year, a woman had her LinkedIn account taken over by a previous employer, and that act did not violate the CFAA. The legislation was initially enacted in 1986 at a time when computer culture was vastly different.

Although it has been amended a handful of times throughout its history, CFAA reform is always a subject of interest for the technology community (as evidenced by the support for Aaron's Law, a proposed CFAA reform that was placed in front of Congress this summer). This case shows that even a still-unreformed CFAA has limits to how far it can be pushed.