3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.

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.