HiQ Labs vs. LinkedIn – antitrust claims dismissed, interference claims allowed [pdf]

I have little-to-no understanding of law, so why is LinkedIn not considered anticompetitive when part of its product is people analytics?

Following are some references for my question

From page 15:

> Moreover, even if there were a voluntary course of dealing between LinkedIn and hiQ, hiQ still must show that LinkedIn sacrificed a profitable course of dealing in the short term in order to benefit long term from the exclusion of competition

...and passing over Aspen references...:

> ....Thus, hiQ implies that LinkedIn lost business as a result of hiQ’s being excluded from access to information publicly available on LinkedIn’s website. But hiQ has not specifically alleged that, e.g., employers stopped using LinkedIn’s services (or discouraged employees from using LinkedIn’s services) after LinkedIn blocked hiQ from accessing its website. Its theory of short-term sacrifice is far from obvious or even intuitive. Absent specific factual allegations, it is speculative to assume that LinkedIn gave up any short-term benefit by refusing to deal with hiQ

From page 17:

> In the instant case, hiQ has not explained how LinkedIn has exploited its locked-in customers (i.e., users). Indeed, hiQ does not appear to claim any exploitation of locked-in customers; instead, it suggests that LinkedIn has used the lock-in to harm people analytics providers.