The court seems to have it right, while the article author doesn't see the court's reasoning. The issue is whether accessing a web site after being sent a cease and desist letter telling you to stop is an act for which the accessor can be assessed damages. (Despite the title, this was a civil case, not a criminal case.)
A previous case established that accessing a web site in violation of its terms of use is not a offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That's just a contractual issue.
Here, though, the site operator (Facebook) explicitly sent a cease and desist letter to the accessing service, telling them to stop doing what they were doing (which apparently involved some kind of message sending on behalf of Facebook users). That put the accessing service on notice that they were accessing the site without authorization. After that, access was considered unauthorized. Seems reasonable enough.
A previous case established that accessing a web site in violation of its terms of use is not a offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That's just a contractual issue.
Here, though, the site operator (Facebook) explicitly sent a cease and desist letter to the accessing service, telling them to stop doing what they were doing (which apparently involved some kind of message sending on behalf of Facebook users). That put the accessing service on notice that they were accessing the site without authorization. After that, access was considered unauthorized. Seems reasonable enough.