What is the Status of the hiQ v. LinkedIn Case?

The Ninth Circuit's Opinion - April 18, 2022

This decision created a vital example by confirming that one can’t be illegitimately liable for extracting publicly accessible data.

Before the decision had made that clear, it utilized to be a general claim that data scraping violates the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), an anti-hacking act that criminalizes retrieving protected computers without authorization to do so. This court held as this concept doesn’t apply to accessing public sites. It mentioned that defining feature of general sites is the lack of access limitations. So, accessing publicly accessible data can’t be unauthorized, as per the CFAA correct reading.

Procedurally, in the case of hiQ v LinkedIn, the court had decided on hiQ’s motion for any preliminary injunction.

Judgment of the District Court - October 27, 2022

As per the new verdict, the court decided on many claims made by parties, mainly about contractual obligations.

The court apprehended that the agreement between LinkedIn and hiQ prohibiting extracting and making fake accounts was broken by hiQ. The costs and other associated legal questions persist undecided and await more proceedings. The court has also determined that LinkedIn's actions that severely damaged client relationships of hiQ and eventually squashed their business were not illegal, as LinkedIn took all the steps to shield its rights until litigation. The court made another decision to give sanctions for not showing evidence as per the law.

The effect on data scraping

It is not valuable to analyze the contractual language information and factual distinctions resulting in the contract breach. However, it is an excellent reminder that when practically scraping, you have to think about if you have the contract placed. That often occurs whenever you sign in to the website and are asked to read and accept a site's terms & conditions. These terms may include limitations or prohibiting data scraping overall. Always be more careful while you extract data behind the login.

Conclusion

We can see that web scraping Services law is slowly emerging and is definitely required. However, it is a pity that in a predetermined area of data scraping proscriptions in terms of usage and careful denial of accessing public sites for competitors, the courts tend to limit the analysis to a language of contract provisions. This will become worth considering if it is legal and legitimate to selectively stop some from using public platforms accessible to all.