First, the court found that this type of trespass cause action does not require loss of personal property. Instead, "interference" is sufficient. The court then took the leap to hold that interference with the use of a home computer is enough to maintain a claim for trespass to chattels.
Because the plaintiff's complaint alleged that computer use had been hindered, slowed down and bombarded with pop-up advertisements, enough interference had been asserted for the case to proceed on this cause of action.
In sum, and in the words of the court: "Simply put, plaintiff alleges that Spyware interfered with and damaged his personal property, namely his computer and Internet connection, by over-burdening their resources and diminishing their functioning. Accordingly, the court denies (the) motion to dismiss (the) trespass to chattels cause of action."