https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-ex...
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on, but I would ask you as a lawyer to answer this hypothetical:
If hiQ had scrupulously and categorically avoided ever using logged-in accounts (as opposed to the facts claimed re 'Turkers') would LinkedIn still have had the leverage to shut us down?
Also note that LinkedIn, as part of its strategy to force us to settle, threatened to permanently delete the _personal_ LI accounts of everyone who worked at hiQ. How does that sit with you ethically, knowing that a LinkedIn account is precisely what you must have in this business, especially when your company shuts down and you need to seek employment?
That's pretty shady re: the threat to permanently delete the personal accounts. But it's also not surprising. At this point LinkedIn and their fellow social media cohorts are emboldened by these recent decisions and they're on the warpath. People need to be careful out there.
However, they were civilly liable for breaking LinkedIn’s terms of service.
Furthermore, do not assume that a ruling pertaining to hiQ is relevant to you without doing further research.
(This comment is targeted at people browsing HN for entertainment. I am not a lawyer and I don’t know what I’m talking about.)
Summary judgment was granted on behalf of LinkedIn against hiQ Labs for breach of contract. Summary Judgment was denied against hiQ Labs on its CFAA claims. So the court ruled that hiQ breached LinkedIn's contract.
The parties settled their dispute with hiQ Labs agreeing to court-imposed injunction to never again scrape LinkedIn and by paying LinkedIn $500k.
Despite the headlines, the final resolution of these disputes was a win for LinkedIn, not hiQ.
For the longer version, read the posts above.