Ugh, this is yet another poorly written coverage of a court case that is more complicated than simple snippets and one liners allow. This absolutely does not s

Ugh, this is yet another poorly written coverage of a court case that is more complicated than simple snippets and one liners allow. This absolutely does not say that web scraping is legal (the ruling specifically notes other ways that it could be illegal). It doesn't even say for sure that web scraping isn't illegal under the CFAA. This is a ruling about a preliminary injuction and as such all it determines is that HiQ has a good enough arguement and valid enough concerns that a preliminary injuction is warranted until LinkedIn wins a suit against HiQ to force them to stop scraping. Take the time, and read the linked ruling. Don't trust poorly written and researched articles from companies that stand to gain from a particular interpretation.