Comment by SahAssar
4 days ago
From that article:
> However, after further appeal in another court, hiQ was found to be in breach of LinkedIn's terms, and there was a settlement.
So why would the same not apply here?
4 days ago
From that article:
> However, after further appeal in another court, hiQ was found to be in breach of LinkedIn's terms, and there was a settlement.
So why would the same not apply here?
They settled out of court, that doesn't mean that they were found to be in breach of the terms.
These were some of the notable elements (worth noting that none mention breaching terms of service):
> Damages: Judgment in the amount of $500,000 is entered against hiQ, with all other monetary relief waived.
> CFAA liability: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn experienced losses sufficient to, and “may establish liability” under a CFAA civil claim “based on hiQ’s data collection practices and based on hiQ’s direct access to password-protected pages on LinkedIn’s platforms using fake accounts.”
> California “CFAA”: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn “may establish civil liability” under California’s state-law counterpart to the CFAA based on hiQ’s data collection practices, use of fake accounts and other means to evade detection by LinkedIn, hiQ’s direct access to password-protected pages on LinkedIn’s platforms using fake accounts, and hiQ’s unauthorized commercial use of data.
> Trespass: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn has established judgment as to liability under California law for the common law torts of trespass to chattels and misappropriation.
> Irreparable harm: hiQ stipulates that LinkedIn has established that it has suffered an irreparable injury and that LinkedIn satisfied the remaining factors and is entitled to a permanent injunction.
https://natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-prop...
A settlement means there was no legal ruling and no precedent set. The entire case is legally moot.
In America, you can simply pay to not lose any lawsuit ever, and thus never have to face legal consequence or changes to the law you don't like.
Paying money is the legal consequence in most situations where one loses a civil case. Very rarely is any legal precedent a result of the case even if the court finds the party liable.
And this is the system in most of the world, even if the nomenclature is different between common law countries and civil and others.