Draft:Technology Law

Technology Law is an overarching legal field in the United States, of legal doctrine and practice that addresses how law interacts with technology, and it's related harms. Technology Law is a field encompasses many facets beyond traditional old-school law firms focused on small facets of the field such as IP law, and company-focused ransomware cases, and privacy law compliance. This field of law is a younger all-encompassing field pertaining to all areas of law in which technology may overlap. Technology law includes litigation, advocacy, and regulatory efforts around cybercrime, social media, image-based abuse, cyberharassment, cybersquatting, hacking, artificial intelligence law, CSAM and child trafficking, online fraud/harm, and more.

Areas of Law

Technology law is the field of law that merges all legal fields pertaining to technology, including traditional fields (IP Law, Information Technology Law, Cybersecurity law, and Privacy Law) along with newer less established fields (Artificial Intelligence Law, Blockchain Law), even addressing emerging technology harm that has yet to be seen, analyzed, or established yet within the legal field.

Technology law covers:

• Legal frameworks governing hacking, unauthorized access, computer misuse (e.g., the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)).
• Domain-name disputes and cybersquatting (e.g., under the Uniform Domain‑Name Dispute‑Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)).
• IP and copyright law.
• Emerging harms such as deepfakes, image-based sexual abuse, cyberharassment/cyberstalking.
• Platform & social media accountability: harms caused by social media addiction, design issues, algorithmic harm, etc.
• Artificial intelligence law: governance of AI models, liability for AI-driven harms.
• Online fraud, identity theft, harassment, doxing, and victim rights.
• Victim-rights legal practice: representing individuals harmed by technology, rather than only corporate defense of “cybercrime”.

In practice, technology law is practiced by a relatively small number of firms and practitioners that focus on victims, platform accountability and high-tech harms. Many law firms advertise “cybercrime” practice yet focus primarily on ransomware or incident response; by contrast technology law as defined here is a newer niche field that aims to evolve the law alongside increasing cybercrime, hold big tech accountable, support victims of technology-facilitated harms and help technology evolve safely.

The Creation of Cybercrime Laws in the U.S.

While technology law builds on traditional areas such as intellectual property, copyright, and contract law, many of its most distinct challenges stem from more recent federal statutes that address digital behavior, privacy, and online harm. The following laws form much of the backbone of modern technology regulation and litigation, particularly in emerging areas often overlooked by traditional cyber or privacy practitioners.

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (1986)

Further Information: [Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]

Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) prohibits unauthorized access to protected computers and has long been the primary federal anti-hacking statute. It has been central to both criminal prosecutions and civil suits concerning data breaches and unauthorized use of computer systems. Critics have argued that the statute’s language on “unauthorized access” is overly broad, leading to inconsistent application. In her article “Google Dorking or Legal Hacking” (2023), Cyber attorney Star Kashman identified a legal gap in the CFAA: certain “Google dorking” techniques—advanced search queries that expose unsecured online data—may exploit public-facing content without technically violating “access without authorization,” revealing limitations in how the law addresses modern cybersecurity threats.

Stored Communications Act (1986)

Further Information: [Stored Communications Act]

The Stored Communications Act (SCA), enacted as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, governs voluntary and compelled disclosure of “stored wire and electronic communications.” It provides privacy protections for users’ stored emails and cloud data, though its 1980s language has created ambiguity in applying it to modern cloud storage and social-media platforms.

Wiretap Act (1968, amended 1986)

Further Information: [Wiretap Act]

The Wiretap Act prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent or legal authorization. Updated by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, it underpins surveillance and eavesdropping law in the digital era and interacts closely with state wiretap statutes.

Violence Against Women Act and Image-Based Abuse Provisions

Further Information: [Violence Against Women Act]

Originally enacted in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) includes multiple provisions addressing cyberstalking, online harassment, and technology-facilitated abuse. The 2022 reauthorization introduced a new federal criminal law banning the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, often referred to as the “federal image-based sexual abuse statute.” These developments reflect the growing recognition of digital forms of gender-based violence.

Federal Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) Action (2022)

Codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851, Congress created a federal civil cause of action for the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images as part of the FY 2022 omnibus/VAWA reauthorization. The statute defines covered “intimate images,” provides remedies including damages and injunctive relief (such as removal orders), and took effect on October 1, 2022. It complements, but is distinct from, later federal measures addressing deepfakes and platform obligations.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025)

Further Information: TAKE IT DOWN Act

Enacted in 2025, the TAKE IT DOWN Act criminalizes certain nonconsensual publication of intimate images—including AI-generated “digital forgeries”—and requires “covered platforms” to implement notice-and-removal processes within specified timeframes, alongside FTC-related enforcement mechanisms.

Challenges and Gaps in Technology Law

Several long-standing legal frameworks, including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and First Amendment free-speech protections, have become focal points of debate and challenges within technology law and safe technological evolution. Critics argue that these doctrines are often applied too broadly in the digital context, shielding online platforms and users from accountability even when their actions contribute to significant harm.

Notable Technology Law Figures note that these laws often get in the way of them seeking justice for clients. Notable Technology Lawyers and experts, have critiqued the over weaponization of these laws.

Law360 highlighted critiques positions on the over-common application of section 230 and free speech, "Star Kashman, a plaintiff-side attorney and founder of Cyber Law Firm, said the playbook on the defense side has also been easy to predict. "We've seen their consistent arguments where they will bring up Section 230 and free speech... it appears that a lot of methods on [defenses] end have not evolved"". Carrie Goldberg has slammed Section 230 in the media, saying it should not be a "get out of jail free card" for big technology companies. Many in the field support the sunsetting of Section 230.

Supporters counter that such protections remain essential to preserving open communication and innovation online. The tension reflects the difficulty of applying laws drafted in a pre-social-media era to modern forms of online harm, algorithmic amplification, and platform-enabled abuse.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996)

Further Information: [Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]

Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms for content created by third parties, protecting them from most forms of civil liability. While it has been widely credited with enabling the growth of the modern internet, it has also complicated technology-law cases involving harassment, defamation, or image-based abuse, where victims often cannot hold platforms accountable. Numerous court decisions—including Herrick v. Grindr (2019)—illustrate the tension between platform immunity and user safety, making Section 230 reform one of the most debated topics in technology law.

Free-Speech Protections and Platform Accountability

Further Information: [Freedom of speech in the United States]

The First Amendment continues to shape how courts balance free expression and harm reduction online. Technology-law practitioners and scholars face recurring challenges in reconciling victims’ rights with the constitutional protections afforded to platforms and users. This balance remains central to ongoing litigation over deepfakes, disinformation, and social-media regulation.

Key Practitioners, Organizations & Scholars

• Mary Anne Franks — Professor and President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI).
• Jennifer Granick -- Supporter of Section 230, and Free Speech Protections, Technology Scholar, worked with the EFF and ACLU.
• Tor Ekeland -- Lawyer who supports hackers on the defensive end of Technology law. Notably represented Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer.
• Colin Levy -- Attorney who publishes and conducts research on Legal Tech.
• Star Kashman — Technology Lawyer, Founding partner of Cyber Law Firm, protects victims of cybercrime and authored the first legal article on Google dorking. Active in legislative/policy advocacy at Gotham Government Relations.
• Ryan Calo — Technology law professor, author, scholar in privacy, robotics, AI law.
• Marc Randazza — litigation attorney known for free-speech support, UDRP cases, and internet law matters.
• Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) — victim-rights nonprofit focused on image-based abuse.

Conclusion

Technology law in the United States is a dynamic, interdisciplinary field at the intersection of law, technology, policy, and individual rights. It is increasingly concerned not just with incident response and corporate defence (e.g., ransomware) but with broader issues of platform accountability, victim redress, algorithmic harms, privacy, and the evolving legal environment for artificial intelligence and digital abuse.