I’m With Nathan & Amy
A police officer, a stripper, a stolen vehicle, and Amy Coney Barrett. Talk about a combination. This amalgamation produced fundamental clarity on Argyle’s business operations. While I nerd out on legal stuff, I’m so jubilant about The Supreme Court ruling in Nathan’s favor in VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES that I’m going to skip right to the fun part.

The story starts out simple enough. Nathan, a police officer, was paid money by a stripper to access license plate information from the computer in his police cruiser. Nathan was able to get this license plate information because he had been issued credentials to the government’s law enforcement database and had the required access level to obtain the information.
If that setup sounds like how Argyle accesses information, trust your instincts.
Nathan was fired and charged with a felony for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects anyone (human or computer) who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access” to criminal liability. Amy and the Supreme Court struck down that charge and said that Nathan had been given this authorization by his employer and was using his computer to conduct an activity that he had been authorized to conduct.
If that sounds like what Argyle does on behalf of employees that have also been given the authorization to access a computer to obtain information, trust your instincts.

Keep this in mind—Nathan was looking up information about other people and giving it to a third party (the stripper). Nathan’s reason for using the computer is rendered irrelevant because he had already been given access to it. In contrast, Argyle only transfers information for the specific person we have been contracted to perform services on behalf of. And Argyle doesn’t offer sexual services of any kind, either.
The bottom line of The Supreme Court’s argument was this: if you don’t want Nathan to have access to that database then don’t give him that access. But if you give Nathan access to a system and that access allows him to do things, well, then, he can do them.
This ruling just came out today. So our legal team is still feasting on the 37 page, 6 to 3 decision. But this ruling will have far-reaching positive ramifications for our operations and our revenue. Employers and payroll platforms can scream from the rooftops about how Argyle is disrupting a revenue stream of selling their own employees’ data to credit bureaus. And then, when they are done, they can come down from the roof and have a productive conversation with us about how they would like to collaborate and provide better benefits to their employees.

Innovation happens when we have resolved that what we are doing is proper, sound, and beneficial for the world. Let’s stay focused. The fun part just got started.