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.