By Clare Maness, JD
One thing about federal crime and federal criminal defense is the variety. Federal crime is often complex, sometimes “sprawling,” and seldom “cookie cutter.” It is frequently “legally dense.” And Matt Weiss’s case is no exception. This former University of Michigan offensive coordinator and NFL coaching veteran (and holder of a master’s degree from Stanford) (Meek, 2025) is currently charged with federal offenses that imply an affinity for more than just opponent breakdowns. A grand jury sitting for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) indicted him on March 20, 2025, charging him with fourteen counts of unauthorized access to protected computer materials (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)), ten counts of aggravated identity theft (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)), and forfeiture allegations (United States v. Weiss, 2025). Basically, the indictment alleges a scheme (running from 2015 into 2023) to hack social media, email, and cloud storage accounts belonging to more than 3,300 people, most of whom were female college athletes. As the U.S. Attorney’s Office puts it in the indictment, “Weiss primarily targeted female college athletes. He researched and targeted these women based on their school affiliation, athletic history, and physical characteristics. His goal was to obtain private photographs and videos never intended to be shared beyond intimate partners” (United States v. Weiss, 2025). The indictment also alleges that “Weiss kept notes on individuals whose photographs and videos that [sic] he viewed, including notes commenting on their bodies and their sexual preferences” (United States v. Weiss, 2025).
Additional details in the indictment address the nature of the alleged offenses from the perspective of technological scope. Student-athlete databases from more than 100 schools have been implicated, with a third-party vendor (Keffer Development Services) maintaining these databases. The personal information or medical data of more than 150,000 individuals are involved. The allegations include details about cracking encryption on passwords that were downloaded. The government is also alleging that Weiss used open-source research and data breaches to obtain personal information such as athletes’ mothers’ maiden names, pets’ names, places of birth, and nicknames. By guessing or resetting passwords, Weiss is alleged to have obtained access to more than 2,000 athletes’ social media, email, or cloud storage accounts. The allegations also include alumni accounts.
Currently, Weiss is on bond, with a $10,000 unsecured appearance bond granted on March 24, 2025 (United States v. Weiss, 2025). Under this bond, he must surrender his passport if he has one and must report to a supervising pretrial services officer (United States v. Weiss, 2025). A pretrial conference is scheduled for October, and trial is set to begin in early November, if the case gets that far (United States v. Weiss, 2025). Any motions are due by July 15. The case is before Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (United States v. Weiss, 2025), who was appointed to the bench in February 1992 by President George H. W. Bush (U.S. District Court, E.D. Mich., n.d.).
The media (Bromberg, 2025; Meek, 2025) have weighed in on this matter with what some might consider exceptional vigor (when it comes to coverage of federal courts), which is hardly surprising, given the personality involved and the charges. And the legal community has likewise rallied to the case, with several class actions currently pending against Weiss, the University of Michigan, the school’s Board of Regents, and Keffer Development Services (the third party that maintained the targeted databases) for civil damages (Bromberg, 2025; Claims Program, n.d.; Stinar Gould Grieco & Hensley, n.d.; Sommers Schwartz, n.d.).
Weiss, of course, is presumed innocent, as one can readily see in provisions like that of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j) (Bail Reform Act of 1984, 1984/2008). That said, the statistics on criminal dispositions in the Eastern District of Michigan are interesting. In fiscal year 2024, 96.1% of criminal matters in the district (617 cases) ended in guilty pleas; only 3.9% of these matters (25 cases) featured a trial (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024a), and of those, only two involved fraud or theft offenses like those charged here (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024b). The vast majority of these criminal cases (84.4%) resulted in custodial sentences—federal prison time (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024b). And sentences in the Eastern District of Michigan for fraud and theft offenses (which this one is for sentencing purposes) are above the national average (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024b).
Getting more specific, the statutory maximum sentence for each of the charged counts is either five or two years, depending on the count. Technically, if Weiss is convicted, either through a guilty plea or by a jury, the court could add all the counts together and sentence him to the statutory maximum sentence available after doing that addition (90 years in this case). In practice, though, federal sentencing is a bit more complicated. Also, with this case, there is the additional complication of whether any sentences imposed for multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A would be set to run as concurrent or consecutive sentences in relation to any sentences imposed for any § 1030 violations, because § 1028A(b)(4) adds a little extraordinary analysis to the concurrent/consecutive question. Going back to the general question of sentencing, however, federal courts use advisory sentencing guidelines to determine how to sentence a person, based on that person’s offense, their criminal history, and other details of the relevant conviction (including things like a victim’s vulnerability, any attempts to obstruct justice, and any leadership of other people) (U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024c). Sentencing equations are complex beasts, so it would be rather futile to try to make any predictions about what sort of sentence Weiss is realistically facing. But one can note that the federal system uses what practitioners call “truth in sentencing,” meaning whatever sentence is imposed is the sentence a defendant serves, minus what one might colloquially call “good-time credit,” which can amount to up to 54 days a year of credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). There is no parole in the federal system. One doesn’t get out early (expect for that potential good-time credit and the possibility of earning a few credits based on participation in certain rehabilitative programs and the like under provisions such as 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), but those benefits are limited). The sentence a defendant receives is close to the actual time they will serve. The nature of the federal criminal-justice system means that an indictment like the one filed against Weiss looks, metaphorically, something like last year’s Philadelphia Eagles’ defensive line.
References
18 U.S.C. § 1028A. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A
18 U.S.C. § 1030. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
18 U.S.C. § 3621. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3621
18 U.S.C. § 3624. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3624
Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq. (1984 & rev. 2008).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142#:~:text=defendant%20pending%20trial-,U.S.%20Code,(4)
Bromberg, N. (2025, April 3). Fifth federal lawsuit filed against Michigan and ex-coach Matt
Weiss after he was charged with hacking into athletes’ accounts. Yahoo!Sports. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/fifth-federal-lawsuit-filed-against-michigan-and-ex-coach-matt-weiss-after-he-was-charged-with-hacking-into-athletes-accounts-120830833.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADMj1fsamUtvKAOln071ib4VapHVfSaSIdngJ6eT_NykoR1gWWOWewwUlfXUVoQVpLYt2Bk65ytqS9DnytCFJuLYW8aQhsxT8oGYlvdvuI9gM1OU1t_7zimDdtQoPzvduIs6YE7YcCaex2zHLB8k850119En4jUzdRFzTSOXGQP6
Claims Program. (n.d.). University data theft lawsuits.
Meek, A. (2025, May 2). Authorities say ex-Michigan coach hacked athletes’ photos.
Will they get answers? The Athletic. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6327826/2025/05/02/michigan-football-coach-hacking-matt-weiss-victims/
Stinar Gould Grieco & Hensley. (n.d.). Former Michigan football coach charged in
widespread data breach. Matt Weiss Data Breach University of Michigan. https://sgghlaw.com/matt-weiss-data-breach-university-of-michigan/
Sommers Schwartz. (n.d.). Matt Weiss university student-athlete hacking lawsuit. Matt
Weiss Hacking Lawsuit. https://www.sommerspc.com/class-action-commercial-litigation/investigations-cases/matt-weiss-university-student-athlete-hack/
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. (n.d.). Judge Nancy G. Edmunds:
Biography. https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chambers&judgeid=13
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2024a). Guilty pleas and trials in each circuit and
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2024b). Statistical information packet: Eastern District
U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2024c). 2024 guidelines manual annotated.
https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines
United States v. Weiss, No. 2:25-CR-20165 (E.D. Mich. 2025).
Clare Maness has practiced federal criminal defense since she earned her J.D. magna cum laude from the Ave Maria School of Law in 2006 (where she served as a senior editor for the law review). She began her legal career with the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Michigan and then went into private practice. She is admitted to practice in the State of New Mexico, various federal district and circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Now a student in the sport-management PhD program at Troy University’s Sorrell College of Business, she will join the sport-management faculty at the University of Alabama this fall, teaching risk management and ethical/legal issues in sport. She competes in archery in the professional division.
