Tech Startup Wants Court-Ordered Protection From LinkedIn
A tech startup that collects and analyzes public LinkedIn profiles and sells the information to companies wants a federal judge to rule it has a legal…
June 09, 2017 at 08:26 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A tech startup that collects and analyzes public LinkedIn profiles and sells the information to companies wants a federal judge to rule it has a legal right to do so.
HiQ Labs, a web scraper, has filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a finding that its business model does not violate the law.
The company also sought an injunction preventing LinkedIn from “misusing the law to destroy hiQ's business and give itself a competitive advantage,” according to the complaint.
By scraping publicly available data from LinkedIn, hiQ creates analytics for employers of LinkedIn's members. The employers then use that data to create more career mobility for workers and improve employee retention, according to the complaint.
HiQ said LinkedIn has threatened to sue in a cease-and-desist letter, but the startup maintained its business does not harm LinkedIn.
“The court should enjoin LinkedIn from denying hiQ access to its website because LinkedIn's real motivation is obviously anticompetitive: to prevent anyone but LinkedIn from being able to use public information for data analytics,” the complaint said. “LinkedIn for years has known about hiQ and its business, has attended data analytics conferences at hiQ and has even accepted awards from hiQ at these conferences. But LinkedIn has now made some public statements about entering the data analytics business, and has abruptly (as of May 24, 2017) decided to terminate hiQ's access.”
LinkedIn did not respond to a request for comment.
Founded in 2012, hiQ claimed it was surprised by the May 23 cease-and-desist letter it received from LinkedIn. HiQ retained a lawyer who contacted LinkedIn in an attempt to explain to the company that the two businesses were synergistic. The lawyer also argued that hiQ had the right to public information and pointed to large sites such as Google and Yahoo that use automated software to access LinkedIn.
HiQ claimed that LinkedIn had no grounds to send the letter, and that LinkedIn was misusing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act along with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to bring its case.
“In other words, LinkedIn recognizes it has no valid propriety or copyright interest, so it claims only that it has a propriety interest to control access to its website, treating that digital realm as though it were physical real property,” the complaint said. “Not only is the analogy inapposite, but LinkedIn ignores that the public profile data of members would not reside on its website in the first place but for its express promise that the data would be public for all to see and use.”
HiQ's lawyer, C. Brandon Wisoff of Farella Braun + Martel, did not return a call seeking comment.
Contact the reporter at [email protected].
Copyright The Recorder. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Digging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute read
FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute read
People and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
