Corp. v. Vision Mortg. Servs. Corp., No. 09 C 471, 2011 WL 666088 (E.D.Wisc. Feb. 15, 2011) (Griesbach, J.) (agreeing with plaintiffs that “the CFAA allows recovery for losses sustained even if data or computers were not damaged”); Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l Inc., 616 F.Supp.2d 805, 811 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 19, 2009) (Hibbler, J.) (“The CFAA states that a company that pays for damage assessment may satisfy the loss requirement.”); Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corp., 609 F.Supp.2d 760, 768 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 11, 2009) (Kennelly, J.) (allegations of loss “related to damage and security assessments ... are sufficient to allege loss for purposes of the CFAA”); TEKsystems, Inc. v. Modis, Inc., No. 08 C 5476, 2008 WL 5155720, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 5, 2008) (Conlon, J.) (<HOLDING>); Sam’s Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Eartig, No. 08
holding that plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation where their only allegation was the payment of artificially inflated prices for defendants securities and their complaint failed to provide defendants with notice of what plaintiffs relevant economic loss might be or of what the causal connection might be between that loss and the alleged misrepresentation at issue  holding that plaintiff sufficiently alleged loss under the cfaa by alleging loss exceeding 5000 for the cost of a computer forensic investigation into defendants conduct holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss