hmm, not really my area. This coverage of van buren seems to show the court trying to make 'authorization' agree in meaning in different parts of (a)(2)?
This incident has nothing to do with (a)(2) as Marak didn't _access_ any system. The only sections violated are (a)(5) (_knowingly damaging_ a system) and, arguably, (a)(7) (extortion). (a)(7) is a lot harder to argue though as his extortion attempt doesn't have a named target or an explicit demand and is generally... lame.
Edit: Note that I'm seeing this the same as a virus, not the same as a data-extraction hack.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-ends-long...