Shoplyfter Hazel Moore Case No 7906253 S Top Jun 2026

This case file will be maintained until the conclusion of all legal proceedings and/or until further notice. Upon closure, the file will be archived in accordance with store policy and relevant laws.

: Shoplyfter is known for featuring Shoplyft videos and possibly related incidents. If Hazel Moore is a figure in one of these, searching directly on the Shoplyfter platform or using search engines with specific keywords might yield results. shoplyfter hazel moore case no 7906253 s top

| Issue | Court’s Holding | Rationale | |-------|----------------|-----------| | | Yes – the API is a “protected computer.” | The court relied on United States v. Nosal (9th Cir. 2012) and Van Buren v. United States (2021) to determine that accessing a computer system with an invalid credential (revoked token) is “exceeding authorized access.” | | Trade‑secret status of the data | Yes – the data qualifies as a trade secret. | The court applied the four‑part test from E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Christopher (4th Cir. 2021): (1) the data is not generally known; (2) it has independent economic value; (3) ShopLyfter exercised reasonable secrecy measures (token authentication, NDAs, internal policies); (4) there was an attempt to misappropriate. | | Breach of contract | Yes – Moore violated the Developer‑Agreement. | The agreement expressly prohibited reverse‑engineering and scraping. Moore’s internal emails admitted she “went around the token restrictions.” | | Defamation claim | Partially granted – only the statements that could be proven false were enjoined. | The court distinguished between protected opinion (“in my opinion”) and false statements of fact. Moore’s claim that “ShopLyfter steals merchants’ money” was deemed a factual assertion lacking supporting evidence. | | Damages & Attorneys’ Fees | Awarded – $1.2 M actual damages + $150 k fees. | The court used Graham v. Connor (Texas, 2020) methodology: (1) lost profits and (2) reasonable royalty for the misappropriated data. The damages were based on a 12‑month period of lost merchant subscriptions and a per‑merchant royalty of $150. | This case file will be maintained until the

This report is confidential and not for public disclosure. Distribution is restricted to authorized personnel and law enforcement agencies. If Hazel Moore is a figure in one