LinkedIn Asks Ninth Circuit to Undo Data Miner's Injunction
LinkedIn asked a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel to allow it to bar data-mining company hiQ Labs from using automated bots to access publicly available LinkedIn user profile information.
March 15, 2018 at 06:54 PM
4 minute read
SAN FRANCISCO—A federal appeals court panel on Thursday grappled with a case that pits data miners' ability to tap the public portions of the internet for crunchable data with the intersects of large websites that seek to limit access to automated bots.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., now a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, asked a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to toss out a lower court's injunction against his client LinkedIn Corp. A federal judge in San Francisco late last year issued a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from blocking data analytics company hiQ Labs from accessing the public profile information of LinkedIn users.
On Thursday, Verrilli said the ruling below was premised on LinkedIn's refusal to deal with hiQ and that merely refusing to engage in business with another party isn't actionable. “It's always been the law that companies get to choose the companies they do business with,” Verilli said.
To that, Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon, the most active member of Thursday's panel, asked when a party could “unchoose somebody” when the subject of the proposed deal was otherwise public information.
Berzon's question highlighted the tension at the heart of the case filed last summer after in-house counsel at LinkedIn sent hiQ a cease-and-desist letter and blocked the smaller company from its servers. HiQ to that point had used publicly available LinkedIn profile information to help employers analyze the skills of their talent pools and identify workers to target for retention. LinkedIn's letter warned hiQ that further effort to access its site would risk violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, a federal anti-hacking law passed in 1986 that carries civil and criminal penalties.
HiQ filed a declaratory judgment suit in June seeking a ruling that its actions didn't violate the CFAA. HiQ's lawyers also brought claims that LinkedIn's actions violated California's Unfair Competition Law and amounted to a tortious interference with hiQ's contracts with employers who'd signed on to use its services.
In a 25-page decision in October, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who has been overseeing the case below, barred LinkedIn from placing any technical barriers to hiQ's access to the public portions of its site.
On Thursday, hiQ's lawyer, Farella Braun + Martel's C. Brandon Wisoff, pointed out to the Ninth Circuit panel that Chen had rejected LinkedIn's argument that it was acting to protect its users' privacy. He argued that LinkedIn had “either condoned or tolerated” hiQ's scraping activities for years and that LinkedIn employees had attended hiQ's conferences—even accepting an award at one. It wasn't until LinkedIn was purchased by Microsoft and sought to develop its own competing analytics products that it restricted hiQ's access, he argued.
Munger's Verrilli, meanwhile, argued that hiQ was clearly acting “without authorization” as defined by the CFAA. Verrilli said that hiQ was seeking to argue that once information has been made public, it's impossible to revoke authorization. But, he pointed out, his client had put up technical barriers to hiQ's data-scraping bots and sent the smaller company a cease-and-desist letter.
“Under any common-sense understanding of 'without authorization,' their conduct after those things happened was 'without authorization,'” he said.
Verrilli analogized LinkedIn's position to the owner of a bookstore. A bookstore, he said, could “still be open to the public” even if it barred someone who had previously shoplifted from entering.
“Their version is that they're not shoplifting,” Berzon responded. Berzon said that hiQ would argue that they were not stealing anything but just using the material for what it's on the web for: “Which is viewing,” she said.
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 AllPolsinelli Hires Data Privacy, Tech Transactions Partner From Kirkland & Ellis
Many Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
California-Based Portal Crypto Exchange Faces Delaware Investor Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Who Should Pay? Insurer Wants No Part of $30M Sexual Abuse Settlement
- 2Passenger Sues Frontier Airlines for Burns Sustained From In-Flight Beverage
- 3Who Are Trump's Potential Candidates for Attorney General?
- 4Drugmaker Wins $70.5M After Fed Judge Says Generic Sales Were Blocked
- 5Out of Thin Scienter: Protecting Confidential Information in Light of ‘NVIDIA v. Ohman’
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