3 ms·

Hi (disclaimer: I was the CTO at hiQ) I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on, but I would ask you as a lawyer to answer this hypothetical: If hiQ had sc

Hi (disclaimer: I was the CTO at hiQ) I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on, but I would ask you as a lawyer to answer this hypothetical: If hiQ had scrupulously and categorically avoided ever using logged-in accounts (as opposed to the facts claimed re 'Turkers') would LinkedIn still have had the leverage to shut us down? Also note that LinkedIn, as part of its strategy to force us to settle, threatened to permanently delete the _personal_ LI accounts of everyone who worked at hiQ. How does that sit with you ethically, knowing that a LinkedIn account is precisely what you must have in this business, especially when your company shuts down and you need to seek employment?

KieranMac 4y ago
That's a really good question. The judge's original rulings were very hiQ-favorable, with those opinions becoming progressively less favorable over time. Whether it was facts learned in discovery or push-back from somewhere else, I wish I knew. Something happened along with the way that made the judge more favorable to LinkedIn and less sympathetic to hiQ. I find it hard to reconcile the early TRO proceedings with what came later. And as I say in the articles, the judge never bothered to explain why he made the 180. That's pretty shady re: the threat to permanently delete the personal accounts. But it's also not surprising. At this point LinkedIn and their fellow social media cohorts are emboldened by these recent decisions and they're on the warpath. People need to be careful out there.
- danbmil99 4y ago
  If you want to have a private discussion on this subject please email me: danbmil99 at gmail dot com