Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Web Scraping Case hiQ v. LinkedIn

Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Contact

On June 14, the United States Supreme Court issued a summary disposition in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. granting certiorari, vacating the Ninth Circuit’s previous judgment, and remanding the case for additional consideration in light of the high court’s ruling in Van Buren v. United States.1 The Van Buren ruling was issued less than two weeks ago and limited the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).2

The data analytics company hiQ relies on access to publicly available data provided by LinkedIn members to conduct its business. In 2017, LinkedIn sent hiQ a letter demanding hiQ cease and desist scraping data from LinkedIn. Additionally, LinkedIn began blocking hiQ’s access and ability to scrape data from public LinkedIn profiles. After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted hiQ injunctive relief, LinkedIn appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that LinkedIn could not block hiQ from scraping data viewable to the general public.

While the Ninth Circuit’s ruling may be considered beyond its jurisdiction, a definitive U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the merits of LinkedIn’s claims (and the legality of data scraping generally) would be binding precedent for all lower courts throughout the country. Given the increased prevalence of data scraping across industries for analytic purposes, such a ruling would have a sweeping impact felt by many businesses. LinkedIn’s previous discovery that an archive of 500 million of its users’ profiles had been scraped and posted for sale on the internet illustrates the impact data scraping can have on businesses like theirs.3

In its petition for certiorari, LinkedIn argued that although certain profile data is publicly available, hiQ’s software bots harvest data on a larger scale than any human could.4 Further, LinkedIn argued that although the decision in Van Buren provided certainty around the reach of the CFAA when a potential violator has “exceeded” their authorized access, the high court did not provide clarity on whether a CFAA violation may occur when the potential violator has no access authorization at all.

It is possible that the high court views this as an opportunity to distinguish between exceeding authorized access and a private company’s ability to deny access altogether. Many are watching this case, and a definitive decision will likely reshape the landscape of data scraping.


1 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
3 https://www.reuters.com/technology/linkedin-says-some-user-data-extracted-posted-sale-2021-04-09/
4 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1116/147933/20200716141411953_19-1116 - Cert Reply.pdf

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lowenstein Sandler LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Contact
more
less

Lowenstein Sandler LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.