11 ms·

Ask HN: LinkedIn sent me a cease and desist for my Chrome extension. Help?

• s17n 4y ago
  You need to get a lawyer.
• bityard 4y ago
  > but I'd like to continue building Browserflow because it's my livelihood You're asking random internet weirdos for business legal advice when you should definitely be contacting your lawyer instead.
  • yellow_lead 4y ago
    Since when does everyone have a lawyer waiting at their beck and call?
    • cornel_io 4y ago
      If you are selling a product to the public and get a legal threat from a big company, you need to get a lawyer, whether or not you have one to start with. Period, end of story. OP mentions it's their livelihood, so it's worth it.
    • zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
      That's what retainers are for. Plenty of people have lawyers on retainer, just waiting for when they need them.
      • buildbot 4y ago
        Plenty of people with $$$$
        • zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
          Or who view it as a necessary cost of doing business. I knew a guy who was into some shady stuff and he saved up $10k to give to his lawyer for when he would unexpectedly need some lawyer services.
    • dwater 4y ago
      "Your lawyer" does not need to refer to someone who works exclusively for you, or someone you have on retainer. It could just mean the legal professional who you call when you need help with your business. If you have a business and have never needed a legal professional before, then you would interpret that statement to mean you should find one and start a relationship with them, as a successful business will likely need frequent legal assistance.
    • veonik 4y ago
      The point is that lawyers sent the cease and desist, so the other side does have lawyers at their beck and call. If you want to do anything other than what they demand you do, you are risking more lawyery-action. And even if you do comply, that doesn't stop them from continuing to bring action against you for some other reason, or for damages, or whatever they want, really. It may not be a system that is geared towards fair play, but if you want to play at all, you really should have a lawyer, too.
• mattlondon 4y ago
  Without a lawyer (get a lawyer!) I would remove all references to linked in and add an exception to the extension that prevents it working on linked in (perhaps display a message with a link to the cease and desist message). I wouldn't bother trying to fight it as a one-person operation. Just accept that life is unfair and carry on. Unless that is you feel very strongly about it and am prepared to sacrifice yourself and future income and potentially employment prospects for the cause. Good luck.
• lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  You absolutely want to find legal representation and ask them. Point out the things you pointed out in this post and ask what they think. Beyond that, I would hesitate to advise. Heed the advice of your legal counsel; find legal counsel if you have not already.
• Maursault 4y ago
  Remove all examples and ban LinkedIn in your code, so that it can't work with LinkedIn. If you have a LinkedIn account, delete it. Problem solved. If they sue you, do not spend every dime on an attorney trying to fight them. Lose. Then declare bankruptcy immediately and protect your assets. LinkedIn can suck it. Also, don't be afraid. It costs them nothing to send a S&D letter. It costs them a fortune to sue you, for which they can only achieve some extremely unprofitable satisfaction. I would even send a copy of a notarized letter to them telling them to stop contacting you. Do it every time they contact you. On their fourth attempt to intimidate you, go to a magistrate and request a restraining order against them.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • phphphphp 4y ago
    terrible advice that may be parody, but just in case you're being sincere: you cannot bank on a big corporation getting cold feet about legal action because legal action is as much about the message it sends to future opposition as it is about the individual action. For example, in the message received by the OP, LinkedIn refer to their legal action taken against HiQ. LinkedIn doesn't want to sue people but they would do it without a second thought if it was judged to be beneficial to them. The cost of being sued and losing and going bankrupt for the OP is huge, and while some people are willing to lose everything to take a principled stand, it's irresponsible to encourage it. If the OP wants to risk everything to stick it to LinkedIn, he should go for it, life is short, but if he's a pragmatic person concerned about his livelihood, he should rollover immediately and live to fight another day.
    • Maursault 4y ago
      So, because you disagree that LinkedIn will pursue expensive litigation for no real benefit to them, you're dismissing everything? You're saying the OP should be afraid? Should spend a fortune on attorneys? Should not declare bankruptcy upon loss? I respect that you disagree. I do not respect your focus on a minor detail to dismiss everything.
• clint 4y ago
  If its your livelihood, hire a lawyer to look into this. The dweebs on this forum are not going to be able to help you here.
  • ugjka 4y ago
    The problem here is that one of his examples involves "scraping linkedin". Just get rid of that
• tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  Not a lawyer. Showing people examples of a website really looks like you're advertising that your extension will work with that site, and it's probably not too far from successfully arguing intent. So begin by getting rid of that. Maybe add a couple disclaimers: "The terms of service of some websites do not allow automated workflows. This extension is not intended to be used to collect data in contradiction to a site's Terms of Service. Please thoroughly read and understand the site's Terms of Service before using this extension. [Developer] cannot assume any responsbility for any action a website may take against you or your account as a result of the use of this tool."
• phphphphp 4y ago
  A big part of LinkedIn's business is providing tools for recruiters to search the database of profiles and extract information, essentially, your extension is compromising their core revenue-generating product and you're loudly announcing it on your website. I am not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt, but if you remove all reference to LinkedIn from your website immediately (and maybe go as far as blocking it for use on LinkedIn) you should be fine. And for future reference, be very careful when promoting the way that people are using your product: plausible deniability is your friend.
  • rootusrootus 4y ago
    > And for future reference, be very careful when promoting the way that people are using your product: plausible deniability is your friend. That seems like excellent advice. After looking at the examples on the site, I'm kinda surprised LinkedIn is the only company that's complaining. It'd be safer to make some leading suggestions to get people thinking of all the interesting things they could automate, but without ever using names, company specific-terminology, etc. Otherwise this arguably isn't a general purpose tool, it's advertising specific features.
• onion2k 4y ago
  To be fair to LinkedIn they do list a specific and limited set of problems in their letter. They're not asking you to stop building BrowserFlow, but to stop advertising it as a LinkedIn scraping tool, and using their logo to do that. It sounds to me (not a lawyer) that removing all the LinkedIn examples from your website and stopping using their logo would be enough to satisfy their request...
  • samwillis 4y ago
    IANAL, but I think this is right. My understanding of the LinkedIn v HiQ case is that it's legal to scrape public pages no matter what is in the website terms. Scraping "privet" pages can be illegal as you have had to explicitly agree to the terms. Your users would be breaking those terms, not you, as they do it on their own machine. As the parent said, just remove all reference to LinkedIn and you can move on.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • zulln 4y ago
      > Your users would be breaking those terms, not you, as they do it on their own machine. As the parent said, just remove all reference to LinkedIn and you can move on. There is some kind of cloud stuff here though.
    • KieranMac 4y ago
      I am an attorney whose primary focus is in this area of law. And this interpretation of the LinkedIn v. hiQ case is categorically wrong. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-expected-years-ago-hiqs-cfaa-wins-dont-mean-it-can-freely-scrape-hiq-v-linkedin-guest-blog-post-part-1-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-ex... https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-web-scraping-laws-guest-blog-post-part-2-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
      • deleted 4y ago
• zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
  [flagged]
• tehlike 4y ago
  you, as the provider of the extension, are not violating the rules. in fact, you are not even giving specialized linkedin features.... it's one of the general purpose automation stuff. I would be surprised if their letter has any teeth besides scaremongering. get an opinion from legal, i am definitely not a lawyer.
• freediver 4y ago
  Get legal advice. It is not clear how is it that your company is violating their user agreement, when it is the users using the extension that are. The extension on its own does nothing? This is my very layman reaction and first thing I would seek to understand better from legal council.
• belval 4y ago
  Not a lawyer but: > Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data, or otherwise violating the LinkedIn User Agreement; > Cease and desist marketing or advertising Browserflow as a tool or service to be used in a manner that violates LinkedIn’s User Agreement, or promoting Browserflow in any way that represents or suggests functionality or features that can be used to violate LinkedIn’s User Agreement; > Cease and desist violating LinkedIn’s intellectual property rights by removing from all Browserflow materials all unauthorized uses of logos likely to cause confusion with LinkedIn’s trademark; and > Affirm in writing that you will not engage in any violations of the LinkedIn User Agreement in the future. Just remove all LinkedIn examples and tell them you will stop marketing it as a LinkedIn scraping tool in the future. I don't know your extension if you make any "significant" money then get a real lawyer to look it over.
  • bee_rider 4y ago
    > Affirm in writing that you will not engage in any violations of the LinkedIn User Agreement in the future. This seems like the weirdest one to me. I mean if they don’t have a LinkedIn user account, why should they abide by the User Agreement?
    • throwanem 4y ago
      Why would you assume someone who develops a browser extension marketed in part as a LinkedIn scraping tool does not have a LinkedIn account?
      • nkozyra 4y ago
        I think the matter of whether they have an account or not is irrelevant. The violations listed are not directed to a LinkedIn account.
        • throwanem 4y ago
          The cited EULA terms don't depend for applicability on creating an account, only on accessing LinkedIn. Whether or not that's enforceable and in what jurisdiction is a different question, and not one that's relevant here; unless OP is extremely foolish, we are not about to see that question tested again in court. In any case, LinkedIn accounts are clickwrapped in the EULA, and you can't build a scraper for stuff behind their auth wall - which, I believe as a direct response to LinkedIn vs. HiQ, is more or less everything they serve - without being able to get past it yourself. So the question of whether or not OP has agreed to the EULA, which LinkedIn complains Browserflow is marketed in part to violate, isn't remotely germane to a meaningful discussion of the issue.
• localhost3000 4y ago
  A few years ago I got multiple cease and desist emails from a FAANG for a Chrome extension they didn't like. I ignored them and they eventually went away. Sending scary sounding emails to indie devs is extremely low cost.
  • guntars 4y ago
    How could the OP make it a higher cost without necessarily having to get a lawyer themselves? This kind of behavior by LinkedIn leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it’s essentially bullying and I wish there was a way to bleed them a little by forcing them to have their $500/hr lawyer respond to some inane but legally necessary requests.
• armatav 4y ago
  Go look at Proxycurl - they’ve been scraping LinkedIn for ages; have a lawyer look it over.
• henryfjordan 4y ago
  IANAL. You probably should get a lawyer ASAP. Linkedin vs hiQ was about the ability to scrape public data. (https://calawyers.org/privacy-law/ninth-circuit-holds-data-scraping-is-legal-in-hiq-v-linkedin/ https://calawyers.org/privacy-law/ninth-circuit-holds-data-s...) Pretty much everyone agrees that you need to follow the Linkedin terms if you are logged in, and those say no scraping. Your site has examples of scraping data from logged-in pages. Normally you could say "it's just a tool, there are legit uses, go after the users", like in the Betamax case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... By including examples of breaking the Linkedin ToS on your site though, you might have opened yourself up to some kind of claim, maybe tortuous interference. I don't really know though, you should get a lawyer to look for you. Again, I am not a lawyer, do not trust me, I am just some idiot who likes to read about copyright law about the internet on the internet. Get your own lawyer.
  • bxji 4y ago
    There was a third ruling in November 2022 for the case, so I wouldn’t say hiQ won. Based on a quick scan, the ruling ended up being that hiQ did violate TOS but that no action ended up being taken for either side. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breached-linkedin-s-terms-prohibiting-scraping-mixed-ruling-declines https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breache...
    • henryfjordan 4y ago
      oh interesting, thanks for the link. Yeah I guess they only "won" on the CFAA claims and even then your link makes it sounds less clear than the older link I provided. What is clear is that Linkedin is not playing around about logged-in scrapping.
• verdverm 4y ago
  1) Talk to a lawyer, many will do an initial consultation for free. Expect to pay money to have them help you with response letters. I would not recommend doing this alone 2) It does sound like your app is more general, like you say, similar to browser automation tools or AutoHotKey. The user requests are not coming from an IP you control. Remove references / examples to LinkedIn for sure. This is basically what they are asking you to do. Talk to a lawyer Side note, I thought LinkedIn lost that case on appeal, and after being sent back down from the Supreme Court for re-evaluation. https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-rules-that-data-scraping-is-legal-in-linkedin-appeal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-rules-that-data-scraping...
  • KieranMac 4y ago
    Again, this is old news and wrong. https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-web-scraping-laws-guest-blog-post-part-2-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
    • verdverm 4y ago
      I assume you are only referring to the LinkedIn losing part of my comment. It would be nice if your comment was more specific to this. Thank you for sharing the link though, I recall seeing that page too As I understand it, OP built a no-code browser automation extension, which can be used to create a LinkedIn automation. It does not come with this ability out of the box, though it seems easy to install: https://browserflow.app/shared/1ac2a868-02ac-4435-a91f-b020332dd7fc https://browserflow.app/shared/1ac2a868-02ac-4435-a91f-b0203... I'm not convinced that LinkedIn has a solid case for Cease and Desist. The court didn't find that someone cannot _build_ such a tool, only that they cannot run it (_conditions & nuances_). OP is not running any such scraping service (except maybe during development), and it is in fact a user of the browser extension who would be violating the ToS. This is not unique to Browserflow and the same situation could exist for any browser automation tool. That being said, LinkedIn (Microsoft) could bury OP in legal fees, so decide if you want to die on that hill... Maybe OP could create a community hub and use 230 to shield them self from user submissions of LinkedIn automations?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• forgotpwd16 4y ago
  You aren't (edit: though saw others say you provide examples of scraping on site so you may be) in violation of user agreement (since as you say it's a tool rather a user) but you're in trademark violation if you indeed use LinkedIn's logo. >Even if I removed all the LinkedIn examples, Browserflow could still be used to automate or scrape LinkedIn because Technically you can block it from being used on LinkedIn. But all they ask is not advertise that can do it. (And remove any trademarks of course.)
  • pancrufty 4y ago
    He logged into LinkedIn, did scraping and documented the whole action. He definitely violated the user agreement at least once. Then he still provides instructions and tooling on how to do so, pls he does access LinkedIn servers on behalf of his customers. This is like building a bomb, publishing instructions, shipping the chemicals to the customer’s door, "building it for the customer" for a fee, and still claiming no responsibility. IANAL, but… it would certainly sound sketchy to the least litigious lawyer in a room.
    • forgotpwd16 4y ago
      What I'm saying, he violated, by utilizing his own account to scrape & provide examples of the process and basically even having an account and developing a tool advertising those features, but the tool perse doesn't violate anything.
      • pancrufty 4y ago
        The tool is instructing his servers to access LinkedIn. You could argue he’s just the messenger in this case, or you could argue that his servers are accessing LinkedIn’s for scraping.
• riverlong 4y ago
  This is not legal advice, but here's what I would do: 1. Recognize that they have requested exactly four specific actions from you (bullet points, second page) 2. Do not follow the 4th bullet point, affirming in writing any future conduct only opens you up to liability. (By affirming, you'd create some agreement that they could later make hay about you breaching if they're not happy with your future conduct.) 3. Follow the 3rd bullet point rigorously. They do have a claim on Trademark infringement, and that will hold up well enough. Clean it up ASAP. 4. Take a legal position on where you stand vis-a-vis the LinkedIn User Agreement. - BrowserFlow (or Road to Ramen LLC) is not a party to that agreement, so you can argue that you're not bound by it. The individual person who is using BrowserFlow is, since they have a LinkedIn account. - If you want to play it safe, remove the LinkedIn examples from your website. (Bullet two.) - I would not change the existing functionality of BrowserFlow -- my view here is that this is general-purpose tech and BrowserFlow doesn't have an agreement with LinkedIn. Any consequence of misuse of BrowserFlow is on the end-user, not you. (As spelled out by the terms at https://browserflow.app/terms https://browserflow.app/terms, which contain a limitation of liability section.) Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though.
  • latchkey 4y ago
    > Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though. From all the recruiter spam I've received over the years, I almost see that as a good thing.
    • sushid 4y ago
      Engineers really love saying this but I take it as a good thing. It's like audibly complaining that you get too many Tinder matches.
      • latchkey 4y ago
        It really depends on how you look at it. If I get a whole bunch of fake AI matches from Tinder, I don't see that as a good thing either. Unless of course, fake AI is your 'thing'...
      • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• saurik 4y ago
  (edit: I see someone says you posted the letter as a pdf link and I missed it. And that you might be using their trademarks. Be very very very careful about trademarks: I often come on here to tell people not to fuck with trademarks if you do stuff like this as that's often the only case these companies have and it is so easy to avoid. I am tired though and have a meeting and am not going to read the pdf, especially as that will verge even more into the danger zone of me giving you legal advice. The rest of what I said here stands.) I am not a lawyer. I deal in this area, but I have lawyers--lots of lawyers--and my primary recommendation is that if you work in this space you have a lawyer. I am going to tell you something, though, about this cease and desist. From the perspective of it effectively being "advice", I encourage you to consider it a "this is the minimum level of damage they can do to you": I am not saying there aren't interesting things that I don't know off--that's like, why we have lawyers--that would really screw you. I also haven't analyzed your extension in any way to know anything about your situation other than what you wrote. > Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data, or otherwise violating the LinkedIn User Agreement. The user agreement is an agreement that has limited consideration and limited recourse. Typically, they can take their balls back and send you home (it's their court, so they don't have to leave), so if they want to they can terminate your account... it isn't illegal to violate the terms of even a well-accepted and carefully done contract (which terms of service ain't), but the recourses for such a limited consideration is also pretty limited, and they know this enough that it even says it in the agreement: they can terminate your account. If this were me, I barely use LinkedIn. I haven't had a normal looking job in forever and I have no interest in getting one ever again. I don't care about my profile (despite updating it every decade or so) and I only check for new connections and messages once every year or so. I really only use the service for cyberstalking, and never understood why people care so much about it. If they wanted to terminate my account, well, "big whoop", right? I'd tell them to go pound sand. Hell: that user agreement--which they are really trying to make legit--seriously says you can terminate it at any time (in exchange for your account being terminated). But maybe you like LinkedIn and need your account. If that's the case, you should cease and desist and maybe even try to apologize while pleading a lack of knowledge of what you were doing or why it was a problem. (But of course, if they then terminate your account, come back with a literal vengeance and refuse to deal with them until they give you back your account.) But like, just realize: you likely aren't coming out of this one with a LinkedIn account if you want to keep developing this extension. FWIW, I have definitely done stuff like this for years despite large companies with lawyers wishing they could stop me. That said, you also might get sued. You can always get sued: that's how our legal system works. They might not have a case, and maybe you can get it thrown out, but that's a leap. You should have a lawyer, and they can advice you on the risks of that. But I can say: if you can't afford to sit around in court for a year arguing with them about this, you might be playing in the wrong league, as the court system in the United States requires you to be prepared at any time to pay to be in court and very much assumes anyone doing commercial activity has a lawyer. Again: I am not a lawyer. For all I know, you are also violating the CFAA or a law I have never heard of. I have not seen your extension. You also only gave us one sentence of the letter verbatim and one other reference (to hiQ) summarized (edit: I missed the pdf link, per above). And I have a lawyer I would consult before responding, a lawyer I have not consulted today on your behalf: I am just a guy who is telling you "expect to lose your account" and "the account wouldn't have mattered to me and I wouldn't be afraid, as someone who has successfully done stuff like this for years and has multiple lawyers" (edit: but also as someone who is super anal about trademarks).
• indymike 4y ago
  > Even if I removed all the LinkedIn examples, Browserflow could still be used to automate or scrape LinkedIn because, well, it's a browser automation tool. Is LinkedIn demanding that I stop developing Browserflow altogether? First, talk to a lawyer. LinkedIn is highly litigious about scraping, and browser plugins often fall in that category. The law isn't settled on the issue at all, and here's a law firm (Farella Braun + Martel) article about HiQ vs LinkedIn from just a few weeks ago: https://www.fbm.com/publications/what-recent-rulings-in-hiq-v-linkedin-and-other-cases-say-about-the-legality-of-data-scraping/ https://www.fbm.com/publications/what-recent-rulings-in-hiq-...
• ok123456 4y ago
  ignore it.
• csydas 4y ago
  As people have said, just contact a lawyer willing to provide a consultation, and likely take their services to get assistance in addressing a response. You have time to get a consultation and draft a response; the language in use is overly broad in the letter and intentionally so. This is to be rebutted and basically tell them "you will stop advertising that it _can_ scrape LinkedIn, but LinkedIn cannot outright ban any tool that might be used for scraping as that's not their right." A real attorney will write this in a very nice way with proper wording that you will stop advertising that it can scape LinkedIn but they can stuff the other parts of the demands wherever is convenient for them. It will cost a bit of money regrettably, but it should be manageable.
• apienx 4y ago
  Remove all mentions of LinkedIn, logos, links and examples ASAP. Don't fight it.
• tptacek 4y ago
  Seems like a pretty simple thing you can do here is just remove any mention of LinkedIn from your product and its marketing. People can use a generic tool to mess with LinkedIn, but that's not your problem, and it's not what the C&D is saying. You went out of your way to market your extension as a tool for messing with LinkedIn in ways their user agreement prohibits. Consider just not poking the bear anymore. I would talk to a lawyer before sending them a written response, but you probably don't need legal advice just to scrape LinkedIn out of your product materials.
• artificial 4y ago
  Careful using any trademarks without permission. Trademark law has some teeth. Remove anything without explicit consent to use. Business side it looks like an endorsement.
• kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  It's high time for lawyers acting in bad faith to be slapped down. In your response make sure to cite the relevant barratry statutes.
• sergiotapia 4y ago
  Funny how Microsoft is suing you but they can basically rape the internet at large to build their GPT bot. It is true if you have enough money you can just do whatever you want.
• lesuorac 4y ago
  > As the Court in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. found when it granted LinkedIn summary judgment against hiQ [1] ... Keep in mind, LinkedIn ultimately lost that case [2] > LinkedIn requires that you affirm that you have complied with LinkedIn’s requests, listed above, by February 10, 2023 ... In the event you do not comply with LinkedIn’s requests, LinkedIn will take appropriate action to protect its members and platform. Definitely listen to the rest of the people who are saying talk to a lawyer. LinkedIn has obviously been doing the same in the interim; it'd be foolish to be the only side unprepared. [1]: https://browserflow.app/linkedin.pdf https://browserflow.app/linkedin.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
  • Domenic_S 4y ago
    > Keep in mind, LinkedIn ultimately lost that case Not really - the wiki page is confusing but the link is there: "In a November 2022 ruling the Ninth Circuit ruled that hiQ had breached LinkedIn's User Agreement and a settlement agreement was reached between the two parties." [0] It was a mixed ruling: hiQ successfully defended against the CFAA argument, and LI won the User Agreement argument. This is why OP needs to talk to a lawyer of their own who deeply understands this area of law. We all can paste links till the cows come home but only a real lawyer is going to have useful advice. More analysis by lawyers: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-expected-years-ago-hiqs-cfaa-wins-dont-mean-it-can-freely-scrape-hiq-v-linkedin-guest-blog-post-part-1-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-ex... https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-web-scraping-laws-guest-blog-post-part-2-of-2.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be... (Disclaimer: I work at LI but don't work in and have no special insight into this area; comments are my own) 0: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-proposed-settlement-landmark-scraping-case https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-...
    • tptacek 4y ago
      This is another way of saying that LinkedIn won the case; hiQ needed to win both of these legs of the case, and LinkedIn only needed to win one.
• mirekrusin 4y ago
  LinkedIn User Agreement may apply for people who agree to it, not everybody on the planet Earth.
• blantonl 4y ago
  You have should do the following immediately 1) Take down this post. LinkedIn's lawyers will almost certainly eventually read it and use whatever you've said here against you 2) Get an IP/Copyright lawyer and start following their instructions This is really your only set of actions you should take if this extension is your "livelihood"
• user3939382 4y ago
  Funny LinkedIn is so proactive given that, of my hundreds of unique-per-org email addresses, the only one that gets spam is my LinkedIn email.
• krono 4y ago
  That's rich coming from a subsidiary of the company behind copypilot (which would of course be Microsoft)! Hopefully you manage to get out of this with your project still relatively intact and yourself otherwise unscathed.
• samstave 4y ago
  Linked in can get fucked ; "Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data" - Then let me see exactly to whom you have been selling MY user data to, how much you made from it. THEY need a cease and desist - because you are directly competing with their business model. Fuck linkedin. If you want anyone to stop scraping data, then you need to provide a dashboard to EVERY single linkedin user on exactly how linkedin has been using their PII to profit. We need a change in the way people regard PII in silicon valley. Just like it was stated - the only reason silicon valley is going after TikTok ban, is they cant compete with TikTok - so BAN them.... Linkedin does exactly what you are doing, thus they want you to cease and desist.
• Zamicol 4y ago
  For all the legal people here, what's the legality of something like "Return YouTube Dislike"? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-dislike/gebbhagfogifgggkldgodflihgfeippi https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-dis...
• heresjohnny 4y ago
  You’re using logos and trademarks of various companies in the context of helping people to violate ToS. The fact that only LinkedIn has reached out so far is quite interesting. I would expect more letters.
• npteljes 4y ago
  I'd remove the LinkedIn examples first. And then regain some of the LinkedIn exposure by astroturfing blog posts, YouTube videos, etc that show how to use Browserflow to scrape LinkedIn. While NOT connecting these two in any other way.
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  Scraping is a grey area - nobody likes their site being worked by bots, except maybe by Google! Even if other companies you advertise didn't send you letters yet, they will, once your product starts being popular and they notice an uptick in unproductive traffic. I'd advertise it as an automation tool only, without any concrete examples. And maybe create an "unaffiliated" forum site where users share their own scripts that just happen to scrape this or that ...
• 93po 4y ago
  Not a lawyer, but I would strongly recommend not responding to that letter until you've spoken to one (and possibly never, even after talking to a lawyer, if that is their guidance)
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  Scraping is a grey area, even if other companies you advertise how to scrape didn't send you letters yet, they will once your product starts being popular. I'd advertise it as automation tool only, without any concrete examples. And maybe create an "unaffiliated" forum site where users share their own scripts that just happen to scrape this or that ...
• david422 4y ago
  I received a cease and desist letter from a company at one point. After the initial shock, I was able to just work with them with what they wanted - a name change and terms added to my product that indicated that I was not associated with them in any way. It was easier than me hiring a lawyer and/or fighting them in court or wherever that would have lead to. And allowed me to keep doing my development. YMMV
• 10g1k 4y ago
  The fact that a "cease & desist" or "terms & conditions" exists doesn't necessarily mean anything. It does not automatically, intrinsically carry legal weight or meaning of any sort. Any random person can put a "licence" or T&C page on their website, or send an email with a couple of supposedly legal terms in it, but that doesn't mean anything. For example (assuming they can actually construct a prosecutable legal case), if you are outside the claimant's and any related court's jurisdiction, you just don't need to give a **. The worst they will ever be able to do to you is disable your account.
• paulschreiber 4y ago
  The EFF can help. Send an email to info@eff.org and say you want some Coders Rights advice.
• shahbaby 4y ago
  On a side note, this is why you should try to build web scrapping tools which don't deviate too far from normal user behavior.
• Awelton 4y ago
  I can scrape linkedin with a python script. That doesn't mean linkedin can shut down python. I would think removing all the references to their company in particular would be enough for them to call off the dogs. For clarity, I am not a lawyer and I have thrown away every cease and desist I have ever received with no repercussions at all. You may not be so lucky and should probably talk to a lawyer.
  • peter_d_sherman 4y ago
    >I can scrape linkedin with a python script. That doesn't mean linkedin can shut down python. Well said! Also, what about copy-and-paste? The last time I checked, data could be highlighted in the browser, copied, and pasted to another application... Does that mean that LinkedIn can shut down the copy-and-paste capability of someone's browser and/or operating system? What about the "Save Page As..." functionality (the ability of a browser to save a page offline?) Can LinkedIn shut down "Save Page As..." ? Also, what about the Print Screen (take a screen snapshot) capabilities of someone's operating system? Can LinkedIn shut down that? Finally, there's literally oodles of software that can be used for web scraping; what follows below is just one non-canonical list: https://github.com/lorien/awesome-web-scraping https://github.com/lorien/awesome-web-scraping Is LinkedIn going to shut down all of that software, all at the same time? LinkedIn is apparently trying to use Law -- to try to solve what is, in essence, a technological problem! Anyway, an excellent point using Python!
• grundoon 4y ago
  "I'd be fine with removing all the LinkedIn examples from the website, but I'd like to continue building Browserflow..." -- my advice is to do just that. IANAL but you will be in the right (not always the same as being on the right side of the law, but more important imo).
• siegel 4y ago
  As an attorney who deals with responding to (and, well, also drafting) letters like this, I think LinkedIn may very well go away if you remove any reference to LinkedIn from your website and otherwise refrain from stating or implying that your tool can be used to scrape LinkedIn. If you are ok with that, a carefully drafted response letter that shows that you take their concerns seriously and are taking steps to effect the above changes might end this. At a minimum, you'll be able to get clarity as to whether they want more that just stop referencing them.
• Dr_ReD 4y ago
  - not a lawyer here - I'd immediately remove every reference to linkedin -anywhere- and hard-block their domain in the code. Only after, I'd probably seek a release from the injunction. Perhaps you should involve a lawyer, but if you won't, then limit yourself to a brief matter of fact explanation of what you've changed, focusing especially on the block in the source code. Do not address their points yourself. Refrain from any commentary, apologies, admissions. I wouldn't go any further without a lawyer.