Logo for LinkedIn social media platform.

hiQ v. LinkedIn: User Agreements in the Age of Data Scraping

Privacy Law, Social Media , , , ,

Image by BedexpStock from Pixabay

On November 4, 2022, LinkedIn announced a “significant win” for the platform and its members against “personal data scraping.” The win resulted from a 6-year legal battle that asked, in part, whether LinkedIn must allow hiQ Labs to scrape data from the public profiles of LinkedIn members.

Last Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California answered that question by ruling that LinkedIn’s User Agreement “unambiguously prohibits hiQ’s scraping and unauthorized use of the scraped data.” And as such, hiQ breached LinkedIn’s User Agreement “through its own scraping of LinkedIn’s site and using scraped data.”[1]

An Overview of Data Scraping

Data scraping is a technique by which a computer program extracts data from another program or source. The technique typically uses scraper bots, which send a request to a specific website and, when the site responds, the bots parse and extract specific data from the site in accordance with their creators’ wishes.

Scraper bots can be built for a multitude of purposes, including:

  • Content scraping – pulling content from a site to replicate it elsewhere.
  • Price scraping – extracting prices from a competitor.
  • Contact scraping – compiling email, phone number, and other contact information.

In today’s economy, data is key, and data scraping is an efficient means of acquiring huge amounts of specific data. Yet, this court ruling signals that companies may need to be more cautious about how and where they use data scraping bots.

hiQ’s Data Scraping Violates LinkedIn’s User Agreement

Founded in 2012 as a “people analytics” company, hiQ Labs provides information to businesses about their workforces. To do this, hiQ extensively relied on using automated software to scrape data from LinkedIn’s public profiles. hiQ then aggregated, analyzed, and summarized that data to create two products, “Keeper” and “Skill Mapper,” which allowed businesses to improve their employee engagement and reduce costs associated with external talent acquisition.

However, in 2017, LinkedIn sent a cease-and-desist letter threatening legal action against hiQ, arguing that LinkedIn’s User Agreement prohibits data scraping. Specifically, the User Agreement states:

Continue Reading hiQ v. LinkedIn: User Agreements in the Age of Data Scraping
Social media apps on the screen of an electronic device

CALIFORNIA’S SOCIAL MEDIA TRANSPARENCY LAW

California Privacy Law, Social Media , , , ,

Image by Pixelkult from Pixabay.

Disclosure Obligations, Hate Speech & AG Reports

Legislators across the United States have been grappling with how to regulate social media companies. In Texas, the 5th Circuit upheld a law limiting how social media platforms can moderate content.[1] In Florida, a brief was filed asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 11th Circuit’s decision to strike down a law preventing how social media platforms can moderate users.[2] Now, with Governor Newsom signing AB 587 into law, California joins the legislative efforts.

Effective January 1, 2024, AB 587 imposes new disclosure and reporting obligations on companies operating social media platforms. A social media platform falls under the law if:

  • The company operating the platform generated at least one hundred million in gross revenue during the preceding calendar year;[3]
  • The platform is a “public or semipublic internet-based service or application”[4] with users “in California;”[5]
  • A substantial function of the platform is to connect users to allow them to “interact socially” with each other in the platform;[6] and
  • Users can:
    • construct “public or semipublic” profiles for the purpose of signing in and using the platform;[7]
    • populate a list of other users with whom they share a social connection within the platform;[8] and
    • post content viewable by other users.[9]

In addition, the law does not apply to services or applications for which user interactions are limited to direct messages, commercial transactions, or consumer reviews of products, sellers, services, events, or places, or any combination thereof.[10]

Disclosure Obligations

A covered social media platform must disclose to users the existence and contents of the platform’s terms of service.[11] In addition, the terms of service must disclose:

Continue Reading CALIFORNIA’S SOCIAL MEDIA TRANSPARENCY LAW