I'm not sure either of those applies. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a judge or jury would agree with your interpretation of "intentionally causes damage". First of all, wear and tear is not damage. When you finish an apartment lease, the landlord cannot keep your deposit to pay for wear and tear. When you rent a car, you are not charged damages for wear and tear. When you borrow something, it would be unheard of to hold you accountable for wear and tear. Furthermore, how do you prove it? Due to the way hard drives and OSs work, I doubt the amount of damage is statistically significant. If it's not statistically significant, it doesn't exist. Finally, if AT&T is sending headers that tell the browser not to cache the data, it should not be written to the hard drive anyway.
Finally, you ignored "intentionally". Do you know how high a bar it is to prove intention rather than incompetence? It's hard, even when it's true. And in this case it just isn't. AT&T doesn't want to fuck your computer, they want to fuck your wallet.
In the wire fraud definition you cited, I don't think AT&T is fulfilling the core of the definition: "defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises". Advertising, by and large, is not considered fraud (as much as we might feel that way about most ads we see).