HiQ’s lawsuit against LinkedIn concerns access to the publicly available internet. HiQ labs is a startup data analytics company who is taking legal action against LinkedIn. HiQ is claiming LinkdIn denied them access to information on their member’s public profiles. This case will be the first time the courts interpret the issue of access on the internet. Moreover, the landmark lawsuit’s traction in the media adds to anticipation for the resulting precedent. Furthermore, this precedent will become common law and used as a guide for future cases surrounding this topic. Not only will this lawsuit go down in history as a landmark case, but it will also affect the landscape of the tech industry forever.
HiQ’s lawsuit against LinkdIn will mark the first interpretation of First Amendment rights for robot speakers by the courts
As hiQ’s lawsuit against LinkedIn climbs the United States court system, more details of the case have become available. After LinkedIn demanded hiQ stop collecting data from their member’s profiles, hiQ took them to court leaving it up to the judge to decide the legality of their data collection. In hiQ’s lawsuit against LinkedIn, LinkedIn claims that hiQ’s data collection violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Despite these claims, the United States District Court ruled that hiQ’s actions were not in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and granted hiQ’s request for a preliminary injunction against LinkedIn. Furthermore, issuing this request means that LinkedIn cannot use legal or technological measures to prevent hiQ from accessing public information.
What happens next will likely determine whether or not the case will go to the Supreme Court. In this case, experts predict that LinkedIn will appeal the ruling by the United States District Court. As a small silicon valley startup with only thirteen employees, hiQ seems to be holding its own against LinkedIn, a social networking superpower worth $26 billion with over 8,000 employees. The future of digital communication and access lies in the hands of the judges who will rule on this case.