ThePayPal 14 are a group of defendants allegedly connected with thehacktivist groupAnonymous, thirteen of whom pleaded guilty in aSan Jose court inCalifornia,United States in December 2013, to charges of conspiring to disrupt access to thePayPal payment service.[1] The attempted four-day disruption of PayPal's operations was allegedly in response to PayPal's refusal to process donations toWau Holland Stiftung's PayPal account set up to collect funds forWikiLeaks, and was part of a wider Anonymous campaign,Operation Payback.[2][3]
 | This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(February 2017) |
The defendants were charged under theComputer Fraud and Abuse Act in July 2011[4] for the attempteddenial of service attacks, which occurred in December 2010.[5] On December 5, 2013, ten of the defendants pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of damaging a protected computer and one felony count of conspiracy, and three others each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor.[6] The 14th defendant had their case handled separately.[2]
New York-based attorney Stanley Cohen, who represented one of the defendants, claimed that the 13 committed acts ofcivil disobedience in political dissent, adding that he thinks that the acts werefree speech protected by theFirst Amendment. In an interview for SKP News Cohen compared the digital 'sit-in' to protests organized by thecivil rights movement. Cohen further noted that the guilty pleas were for misdemeanors resulting in probation, instead of having the defendants face possible felony convictions and jail sentences. A fine of $86,000 is being equally distributed among the 13 activists, each owing $6,615. The fine must be paid by December 2014.[7]
It is unclear how many people actually took part in the attacks.Pierre Omidyar, founder of the online marketeBay, asked federal prosecutors to show leniency, stating that "[i]n those cases, I believe justice requires leniency. In my view, they should be facing misdemeanor charges and the possibility of a fine, rather than felony charges and jail time."[8]