Comment by Klonoar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Klonoar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hmmm, I'm a bit confused on something. The HiQ vs LinkedIn case, to my knowledge, went through the following stages:

- LinkedIn sues HiQ, Ninth Circuit sides with HiQ

- LinkedIn pushes to Supreme Court, Supreme Court vacates citing Van Buren

- Ninth Circuit re-reviews and affirms their decision

- LinkedIn moves to get the injunction preventing them from blocking HiQ dissolved, which is granted

- A mixed judgement is finally issued in Nov 2022 ultimately resulting in a private settlement

Where exactly does this leave things at? I feel like everyone loves to cite this case but never goes into the finer details.

Reading a summary of the mixed judgement from Nov 2022, it looks like maybe the issue came from HiQ using people to log in and thus the ToS came into play...? If I'm reading correctly, it looks like the court did eventually side with LinkedIn in stating that HiQ violated the ToS.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breache...

Edit: Formatting.

Actually, as I re-read this, this how it should go:

-hiQ sues LinkedIn for injunctive relief in the ND Cal., win on its CFAA claim.

-LinkedIn appeals to 9th Circuit, which sides with hiQ on CFAA claim

-hiQ loses its antitrust claims at the motion to dismiss stage

(somewhere in here hiQ goes out of business, but rich benefactor keeps paying its legal bills)

-LinkedIn continues with breach of contract and other claims, wins at motion to dismiss

-LinkedIn appeals to the Supremes, who vacates and remands back to 9th Circuit after Van Buren

-9th Circuit sides with hiQ a 2nd time on the CFAA claim

-injunction is dissolved

-hiQ suffers near-total defeat at summary judgment

-hiQ waves the white flag, agrees to permanent injunction agreeing to nearly all of LinkedIn's demands and pays LinkedIn 500k

So does that mean the conclusion is that scraping is bad? Or did the 9th circuit establish that scraping is OK and hiQ suffered defeat on some other basis?

Clarification: it's the breach of terms of service that meets this bar for breach of contract in this case

If this is the case, I guess what I'm really wondering is: does the existence of the EULA cause this, or was it HiQ having "turks" sign in to do it - thus accepting the EULA?

I think that's exactly it, they had automation logging in, which meant they accepted the tos, then violated it. The govt has sided with business in these cases (it seems)

It seems to me they were defeated on the terms of some other contract they had with LI, not the scraping?

Thank you, that's certainly more in-depth than my understanding was. Very helpful to read.

Who's the rich benefactor?

Not a mixed judgment in Nov. 22. It was a massive defeat for hiQ Labs. Read the permanent injunction issued by the court.

Interesting. You appear to be a lawyer or in that realm, so I'm curious your take on it - though I also understand if you don't want to publicly make statements or anything.

i.e is the common take that people have of "scraping is legal after HiQ vs LinkedIn" just completely wrong?

Edit: oh, I didn't realize you wrote quite a bit here: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...

>Read the permanent injunction issued by the court. Happen to have a link?

The question that matters is if this establishes any precedence.

https://ia600100.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.cand.3...

This case never went to trial but it could have. The Court denied LinkedIn's motion for summary judgment as to hiQ's waiver and estoppel defenses to LinkedIn's breach of contract claims.

Calling this Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment "precedent" would be a mistake. Nor is the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction "precedent". The Ninth Circuit decision is precedent.

People in this thread are stating that hiQ was "defeated". Of course. However if "defeat" means a party settling, paying a large sum and agreeing to refrain from certain conduct in the future, then Google and Facebook have been "defeated" many times.

Having "web scraping" remain a "gray area" by limiting the number of final decisions and thereby the amount of precedent might be beneficial to so-called "tech" companies. Putting aside hiQ's predicament, if more of these cases went to trial instead of settling, then we might have some clarity.

We should be thanking whomever funded hiQ's litigation costs. Getting the Ninth Circuit decision was something every web user can be thankful for.

Thanks.

So you can't be extradited to the states or go to jail there as it doesn't violate the CFAA (as the supreme court sent it back)?

I guess 500k and no lawyer fees sounds like it isn't punitive given it's, i assume, decently sizeable company?

I'm wondering if we're looking at another MPAA/RIAA situation where they threaten 6 figure sums at individuals.

I lived through that, but this time it's not some 32kbps mp3s of metallica, it's just the entire future of human thought and power itself.

You never really know how a common law justice system is going to act.

I don't. I just have a .pdf. Email me at Kieran(at)McCarthyLG(dot)com if you want a copy.

What is the legal precedent of a mixed ruling? I was unaware such a thing was even possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com