4 ms·
google will lose, and I'm surprised they are even trying. hiQ v. LinkedIn already settled this: scraping public web pages isn’t “unauthorized access,” even if t
by randyrand 9mo ago
google will lose, and I'm surprised they are even trying. hiQ v. LinkedIn already settled this: scraping public web pages isn’t “unauthorized access,” even if the site says no via robots.txt or ToS. Those aren’t locks.
- littlecranky67 9mo agoIn Germany, this was also already ruled lawful by the highest court (in the context of plane ticket prices scraping).
- bitbasher 9mo agoHiQ lost on appeal, Microsoft won
- sjtgraham 9mo agoIncorrect. OP's view is present day 9th Circuit precedent.
- gnfargbl 9mo agoNo, it's more complicated than that: https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2022/12/linkedin-v-hiq-landmark-data-scraping-suit-provides-guidance-to-data-scrapers-and-web-operators https://www.morganlewis.com/blogs/sourcingatmorganlewis/2022... The short answer is that scraping isn't a CFAA offence but might be a terms and conditions violation, depending on the specifics of the access.