assuming [the plaintiffs’] position to be true due to lack of argument and then ultimately ruling on other grounds.”103 The plaintiffs point to no decision of any Court of Appeals holding that a personal computing device is protected by the Stored Communications Act. In sum, the defendants’ alleged conduct implicates no protected “facility.” The District Court’s dismissal of the claim for violation of the Act will therefore be affirmed. C. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act The plaintiffs’ final federal claim is for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The Act creates a cause of action for persons “who suffer[] damage or loss” because, inter alia, a third party “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer.”104 The District Court dismissed this claim for failing to meet the statutory requirement of “damage or loss.”105 Under the Act, “the term ‘damage’ means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or 103 In re iPhone, 844 F. Supp. 2d at 1057-58. 104 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (g). 105 In re Google, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 448. 48