Section 33.022 is Texas's denial-of-access statute. It is a third-degree felony regardless of loss amount, which makes it one of the more severe computer-crime provisions in the code.
What the Statute Says
(a) A person, other than a network provider or online service provider acting for a legitimate business purpose, commits an offense if the person intentionally interrupts or suspends access to a computer system or computer network without the effective consent of the owner.
(b) An offense under this section is a third degree felony.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person acted with the intent to facilitate a lawful seizure or search of, or lawful access to, a computer, computer network, or computer system for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
How These Cases Arise
Employment and business disputes. By far the most common pattern in Harris County. A departing IT employee, a contractor in a fee dispute, or a falling-out between business partners leads to someone changing passwords, disabling accounts, or locking others out of systems they had built or administered. The statute converts what feels like a civil dispute into a felony.
Denial-of-service attacks. The conduct the statute was plainly written for.
Ransomware. Related conduct is addressed by Section 33.023, which expressly covers ransomware and is graded by loss.
Defenses
Effective consent and authority. The core issue. A system administrator acting within granted authority, or whose authority was never expressly revoked, does not act "without the effective consent of the owner." Employment agreements, IT policies, offboarding records, and the actual timeline of revocation matter enormously.
Who is the owner? In partnership disputes and closely held businesses, ownership of systems and accounts is frequently genuinely contested. Where the accused is a co-owner, the element is doubtful.
No interruption or suspension. Changing a password that no one else was using, declining to provide a credential, or failing to continue unpaid services is not the same as interrupting or suspending access. Refusing to keep working is not a crime, and prosecutors sometimes charge it as one.
Intent. The statute requires intentional conduct. Automated lockouts, expired licenses, failed backups, and misconfiguration are not intentional interruptions.
The provider exception. Network and online service providers acting for a legitimate business purpose are expressly excluded.
Parallel Exposure
The same conduct frequently supports breach of computer security under Section 33.02, electronic data tampering under Section 33.023, and a federal prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. There is almost always a civil suit running alongside, and statements made in the civil case are available to prosecutors — which is why the two must be coordinated by counsel.
Related
Charged in Harris County?
Brian Foley is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a former Harris County Felony Chief Prosecutor; Luis Baez is a former Trial Bureau Chief. Call or text (713) 703-1718 for a free, confidential consultation.