4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn Originally, the ninth circuit ruled that web scraping was

• jncfhnb 3y ago
  > LinkedIn petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.[9] In an order on June 14, 2021,[10] the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision on the basis of their ruling on CFAA the week prior in Van Buren v. United States, which had ruled that the "exceeds authorized access" of CFAA only applies when an individual has valid access to a system but accesses parts of a system they are not intended to access.[4] The case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further review under Van Buren.[11] > In a second ruling in April 2022 the Ninth Circuit affirmed its decision.[5][6] Is this not saying the opposite?
  • dahfizz 3y ago
    The final ruling on this case was in November 2022[1]. The April 2022 decision was overturned in August 2022. It came back up in November 2022, where it was decided that HiQ has violated the User Agreement and had to pay damaged to LinkedIn. HiQ no longer exists, so I think the case is definitely done. It doesn't seem to have set any firm precedent about whether web scraping violates the CFAA, but considering HiQ ultimately had to pay damages, I don't think its a resounding win for web scrapers. [1] 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...