data, or databases, nor has Farmers alleged any interruption of service. In response, Farmers argues that “any reasonable cost to any victim” can be considered a loss under the CFAA, including “the cost of responding to an offense.” (Farmers’ Resp. 5 (quoting United States v. Janosko, 642 F.3d 40, 41 (1st Cir.2011)).) Both parties cite case law from the district courts of this circuit in support of their positions. Based on the plain language of the CFAA, this court finds that a plaintiff can satisfy the CFAA’s definition of loss by alleging costs reasonably incurred in responding to an alleged CFAA offense, even if the alleged offense ultimately is found to have caused no damage as defined by the CFAA. See 1st Rate 570, 2008 WL 4394962, at *4 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 24, 2008) (Darrah, J.) (<HOLDING>). The court acknowledges the presence of
holding that the defendants instate conduct must form an important or at least material element of proof in the plaintiffs case holding loss causation not adequately pleaded when the complaint did not claim that the share price fell significantly after the truth became known holding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded elder abuse by alleging that the defendant investment firm took or appropriated her funds by use of a fraudulent scheme holding that an indictment alleging that the conspiracy extended until at least 1980 was sufficient holding that plaintiff adequately pleaded loss under the cfaa by alleging costs of at least 5000 in terms of responding to defendants conduct and conducting damage assessments