The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court decision. HiQ wins and is allowed to scrape public data from LinkedIn.

LinkedIn posses a serious **risk of becoming an

information monopoly that would go against public interest**. HiQ wins.

<aside> 📗 "Although there are significant public interests on both sides, the district court properly determined that, on balance, the public interest favors hiQ’s position. We agree with the district court that giving companies like LinkedIn free rein to decide, on any basis, who can collect and use data—data that the companies do not own, that they otherwise make publicly available to viewers, and that the companies themselves collect and use—risks the possible creation of information monopolies that would disserve the public interest."

</aside>

<aside> 📗 "Finally, LinkedIn’s asserted private business interests— “protecting its members’ data and the investment made in developing its platform” and “enforcing its User Agreements’ prohibitions on automated scraping”—are relatively weak. LinkedIn has only a non-exclusive license to the data shared on its platform, not an ownership interest. Its core business model—providing a platform to share professional information—does not require prohibiting hiQ’s use of that information, as evidenced by the fact that hiQ used LinkedIn data for some time before LinkedIn sent its cease-and-desist letter."

</aside>

LinkedIn doesn't own the data shared on its platform. "Protecting its members' data" isn't a valid argument to prohibit scraping. **

LinkedIn is prohibited to selectively block HiQ from accessing public data.

<aside> 📗 "We therefore conclude that hiQ has raised at least serious questions going to the merits of its tortious interference with contract claim. As that showing on the tortious interference claim is sufficient to support an injunction prohibiting LinkedIn from selectively blocking hiQ’s access to public member profiles, we do not reach hiQ’s unfair competition claim "

</aside>

<aside> đź“— "If companies like LinkedIn, whose servers hold vast amounts of public data, are permitted selectively to ban only potential competitors from accessing and using that otherwise public data, the result - complete exclusion of the original innovator in aggregating and analyzing the public information - may well be considered unfair competition under California law."

</aside>

LinkedIn is not allowed to block potential competitors from accessing and using public data.

Sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLdJujOp8k&feature=emb_logo

District Court Holds That Intentionally Circumventing IP Address Ban Is "Access Without Authorization" Under the CFAA - The Volokh Conspiracy

Law & Ethics of Scraping: What HiQ v LinkedIn Could Mean for Researchers Violating TOS

LinkedIn vs. HiQ Labs

**