Start Your Project with Us

Whatever your project size is, we will handle it well with all the standards fulfilled! We are here to give 100% satisfaction.

  • Any feature, you ask, we develop
  • 24x7 support worldwide
  • Real-time performance dashboard
  • Complete transparency
  • Dedicated account manager
  • Customized solutions to fulfill data scraping goals
Careers

For job seekers, please visit our Career Page or send your resume to hr@actowizsolutions.com

Legal Information Page

Disclaimer: Please note, Actowiz Solutions does not offer any legal advice. We recommend consulting your legal counsel for expert assistance.

This page offers the latest updates on legal issues surrounding web scraping, including links to experts and recent court cases. If you have new information or spot inaccuracies, please inform us so we can make corrections.

Web Scraping Legality - Key Insights

Web scraping legality is determined by the laws of the specific country or region. In most cases, gathering publicly available information is not illegal. If it were, platforms like Google, which scrape data from across the web, would not be allowed to operate.

2024

Meta vs. Bright Data: United States District Court, Northern District of California

- January 23, 2024

COURT DENIES META’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On January 23, 2024, Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California issued a ruling in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC, that could have far-reaching implications for web scraping law. The court granted Bright Data's request for summary judgment, siding with the company that provides scraping tools and collects data from publicly available online sources, including Meta's platforms. This ruling extends the precedent set in the hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. cases, where Judge Chen's interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) redefined its application to scraping activities.

Click here for the full text of the ruling.

2022

LinkedIn v. HiQ Labs: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

- April 18, 2022

THE NINTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE 2017 DECISION IN FAVOR OF HIQ LABS, RULING THAT LINKEDIN’S BLOCKING OF WEB SCRAPING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO A PROTECTED COMPUTER.

The ruling reflects the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision, which upheld the 2017 determination in HiQ v. LinkedIn that web scraping does not equate to unauthorized access to a protected computer. HiQ, an employment analytics firm, filed the lawsuit in 2017, challenging LinkedIn’s efforts to block it from scraping publicly available profile data. More details can be found at The Register.

2021

Van Buren v. United States: U.S. Supreme Court Case

- June 3, 2021

Although this case does not specifically address web scraping, it examines the application of the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in such contexts. It provides valuable insights into how the CFAA is interpreted in web scraping cases. While not addressing all CFAA- related questions, the decision appears to significantly narrow the law's scope, potentially discouraging companies from using the CFAA to challenge web scraping. A detailed commentary on the case can be found here.

2020

Genius Media Group Inc. vs. Google LLC and LyricFind: Eastern District Court of New York

- August 12, 2020

A web scraping lawsuit against Google, filed by Genius Media Group, was dismissed by Judge Margo Brodie. Genius alleged that Google scraped lyrics from their platform to feature in search results. The judge determined that these claims were efforts to enforce copyright owners’ rights against unauthorized reproduction, making them preempted by the Copyright Act. To explore the full ruling, refer to Genius Media Group Inc. vs. Google LLC and LyricFind (19-CV-7279 MKB), or read further on TechCrunch and LawStreetMedia.

2018

Sandvig v. Sessions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

- March 30, 2018

In a U.S. District Court ruling (Sandvig v. Sessions), the court acknowledged that web scraping may fall under the protections of the First Amendment. The decision emphasized that the plaintiffs’ choice to scrape data rather than manually record information does not alter the legal analysis. According to the court, scraping is simply a technological advancement that facilitates data collection, likened to using a tape recorder instead of taking written notes or using a smartphone’s panorama function instead of capturing multiple photos from different angles.

Terms of Service Legality

To learn more about the application of Terms of Use to web scraping, please review our website's Terms of Use in full.

2024

Meta vs. Bright Data: Case in the U.S. District Court for Northern California

- January 23, 2024

In a significant ruling on January 23, 2024, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a summary judgment in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC. The court ruled in favor of Bright Data, a company specializing in scraping and providing data extracted from publicly available sources, including Meta’s social media platforms. This decision further strengthens the precedent set in the earlier hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. cases, where Judge Chen’s interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) reshaped the legal understanding of web scraping.

The full text of the ruling can be found here.

2020

Sandvig v. Sessions - U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

- March 27, 2020

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ruled that violating a website’s terms of service does not constitute a criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Judge John D. Bates, in Sandvig v. Barr (Civil Action No. 16-1368), stated that criminalizing terms-of-service violations could turn each website into its own criminal jurisdiction, effectively granting webmasters legislative powers. This approach would create significant legal challenges, as each site’s terms would become its own law.

The full text of the ruling is available here.

2018

Oracle v. Rimini Street: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling

- January 8, 2018

According to the EFF, a recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling clarifies that “taking data using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use” – meaning scraping – does not breach state computer crime laws, as long as the data collection itself is generally allowed. As the EFF notes, “Neither statute... applies to simple violations of a website’s terms of use, where the user has permission to access the data but accesses it in a way the website owner disapproves of.”

At Actowiz Solutions, we continuously update this Legal Information page to provide the most current and accurate details. Stay informed about the latest legal developments and compliance guidelines related to web scraping and data usage.