SCOTUS throws out a lower court ruling that had allowed 3rd-party scraping of LinkedIn users' public profiles, sending the dispute back to federal appeals court
LinkedIn’s challenge followed a 2017 order requiring it to remove technical barriers to hiQ’s access and a 2019 appellate decision that rejected LinkedIn’s earlier bid to halt hiQ’s scraping. The Supreme Court’s intervention reopens that litigation path rather than resolving whether public-profile scraping is permitted.
LinkedIn regains an opportunity in federal appeals court to argue for restrictions on hiQ Labs’ collection of public profile data.
hiQ’s ability to rely on the earlier appellate ruling is disrupted as the case returns for further review.
Second-order effects
Other firms that collect LinkedIn’s public-profile data face renewed legal uncertainty, while LinkedIn gains leverage in disputes over automated access to its service.
The remand puts renewed focus on LinkedIn’s technical controls and legal claims as complementary tools for limiting third-party data collection.
Third-order effects
If platforms repeatedly win greater control over data they display publicly, access to web-scale data may increasingly depend on platform permission rather than public availability alone.
The case illustrates a continuing effort to define the limits on blocking public-profile scraping through litigation, leaving a consequential access rule dependent on appellate interpretation.
The trend: Public-facing platforms are pressing to turn technical control of their interfaces into stronger legal control over third-party data access.
Does a cease-and-desist letter close the gate that makes a public website off-limits to its recipient, so that visiting is like hacking in? Or does putting information out there in public where everyone has access an open gate that authorizes everyone to visit the public URL?
1/#SCOTUS has GVR'ed (granted, vacated the judgment, & remanded) the cert petition in LinkedIn v hiQ, on whether hiQ lacked authorization to access LinkedIn's servers under #CFAA. Basically, lower courts will get first bite at deciding Q left open by Court's decision in Van Buren
6/Bright side is that LinkedIn has another shot at this case b/c 9th Cir's decision upholding the order forcing LinkedIn to give hiQ access to its servers is now vacated. So still more to come, just not at #SCOTUS #CFAA
4/There is already a circuit split over the methods computer owners can use to limit access, and Van Buren doesn't help the circuits resolve, so the GVR is disappointing & just dodges the Q left open in VB for now #SCOTUS #CFAA
This case is a great example of the conflict between user privacy expectations and how the web works. LinkedIn users don't expect that their profile data being used to populate other apps that build profiles of them yet this is how Google basically works. https://www.reuters.com/…
SCOTUS sends LinkedIn—HiQ case back to 9th Circuit to reconsider in light of Van Buren. Hugely consequential case for online privacy, publicly available information. https://www.reuters.com/...