4 ms·
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-hol
by 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 agoThere 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 agooh 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.