Sally cannot stand ads on the Internet, and so she uses an ad blocker. When she registered with EntertainmentNews.com, EntertainmentNews.com the terms of use agreement contained these clauses:

1.1 If you choose to use EntertainmentNews.com . . . you will be agreeing to abide by all of the terms and conditions of these Terms of Service.

1.2 We may change, add or remove portions of these Terms of Service at any time, which shall become effective immediately upon posting . . . by continuing to use this Site, you agree to any changes.

1.3 If any of these rules or any future changes are unacceptable to you, you may cancel your membership.

1.4 You may not attempt to circumvent any restriction or condition imposed on your use or access, or do anything that could disable or damage the functioning or appearance of the Services, including the presentation or display of advertising. Being exposed to advertising is a condition of accessing the Services.

When Sally uses the site, she sees this pop-up notice:

You appear to be using an ad blocker. Please turn it off to access EntertainmentNews.com.

When she complains to EntertainmentNews.com, it calls her attention to the prohibition on the use of ad blockers. Sally is furious and immediately sends this letter to EntertainmentNews.com:

You are not authorized to send any content to any computer I use to access EntertainmentNews.com unless you allow the effective use of an ad blocker when I view that content.

A few days later, Sally visits EntertainmentNews.com. She expects to see the pop-up notice, but the site opens without any problem. She sees ads, but her ad blocker allows ads from businesses on their whitelist, and at first she thinks that is what is happening. But there are so many ads, she gets suspicious, and after a lot of research and investigation, she discovers that EntertainmentNews.com had started using software that prevents ad blocks from successfully blocking ads.

Sally sues EntertainmentNews.com under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, section 1030(a)(2)(C), which creates criminal and civil liability for whoever (a) "intentionally accesses a protected computer (b) without authorization . . , and (c) thereby obtains ... information from any protected computer." You may assume that Sally's computer is a protected computer, and you may assume that Sally can show $5000 of loss, as required for civil liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and you may assume that the terms of use agreement is enforceable.

Will Sally's lawsuit be successful?