While the court considered the Colorado statute for trade secrets in its decision, other states such as Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have nearly identical statutes adopted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The analysis presented by the court, concluding that the MySpace profile held "ancillary information" that "cannot be found in public directories" provided a differing viewpoint from past cases, such as "Sasqua Group, Inc. v. Courtney", 2010 WL 3613855 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010) which determined that social media connections such as on Facebook or LinkedIn were not in fact trade secrets due to the fact that the lists of connections were available to the public. Professor of Law Eric Goldman criticized the opinion, saying that it was "opaque and confused." The court holding failed to answer many questions regarding the trade secret ancillary information, such as whether one can copy a MySpace friends list "without" committing any trade secret misappropriation. Goldman wrote in a blog post that this clearly should be possible. He then pointed out that a user with a copy of the friends list could then send private messages to each of those friends, which again, should not be a violation of trade secret either. Ultimately, he suggested that the decision may have been clearer if the Court treated the account's login credentials as a trade secret instead. The commentary surrounding this case has been careful to avoid the affirmative declaration that Christou's friends list was a trade secret. This is because the court's order applied to a motion to dismiss. An order from this context does not actually certify that the friends list was a trade secret. Instead, the court concluded "only that Roulier, et al., had not proven that the list "could not" be a trade secret." The decision allowed Christou to proceed with his claim, and he would then have to prove that the friends list was a trade secret. In a similar case regarding whether social media accounts could be held as trade secrets, "PhoneDog v. Kravitz", the United States District Court for the Northern District of California determined that Twitter follower lists and passwords could constitute trade secrets. Law firm Hahn Loeser ranked this case #7 in its Trade Secret Litigator's Top 10 Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases of 2012. The list envisioned that businesses would soon come to terms with the increasing importance of corporate social media account ownership policies, and that there would be fewer such disputes.