“The SEC’s rationale, under which the statute must be construed to broadly cover all systems public companies use to safeguard their valuable assets, would have sweeping ramifications,” Engelmayer wrote in a 107-page decision.

“It could empower the agency to regulate background checks used in hiring nighttime security guards, the selection of padlocks for storage sheds, safety measures at water parks on whose reliability the asset of customer goodwill depended, and the lengths and configurations of passwords required to access company computers,” he wrote.

The federal judge in Manhattan also dismissed SEC claims that SolarWinds’ disclosures after it learned its customers had been affected improperly covered up the gravity of the breach, in which Russian intelligence agents were accused of burrowing through SolarWinds software for more than a year to get inside multiple federal agencies and big tech companies. U.S. authorities described the operation, disclosed in December 2020, as one of the most serious in recent years, and its ramifications are still playing out for the government and industry.

In an era when deeply damaging hacking campaigns have become commonplace, the suit alarmed business leaders, some security executives and even former government officials, as expressed in friend-of-the-court briefs asking that it be thrown out. They argued that adding liability for misstatements would discourage hacking victims from sharing what they know with customers, investors and safety authorities.

Austin-based Solar Winds said it was pleased that the judge “largely granted our motion to dismiss the SEC’s claims,” adding in a statement that it was “grateful for the support we have received thus far across the industry, from our customers, from cybersecurity professionals, and from veteran government officials who echoed our concerns.”

The SEC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Engelmayer did not dismiss the case entirely, allowing the SEC to try to show that SolarWinds and top security executive Timothy Brown committed securities fraud by not warning in a public “security statement” before the hack that it knew it was highly vulnerable to attacks.

The SEC “plausibly alleges that SolarWinds and Brown made sustained public misrepresentations, indeed many amounting to flat falsehoods, in the Security Statement about the adequacy of its access controls,” Engelmayer wrote. “Given the centrality of cybersecurity to SolarWinds’ business model as a company pitching sophisticated software products to customers for whom computer security was paramount, these misrepresentations were undeniably material.”