LinkedIn Wins Lawsuit Against Chrome Extension Scanner
▼ Summary
– A judge dismissed two lawsuits against LinkedIn regarding its practice of scanning user browser extensions due to lack of standing.
– The plaintiffs failed to allege that they had extensions installed that conveyed private information to the platform.
– Judge Vince Chhabria expressed doubt that the users could ever make a plausible case given the voluntary nature of downloading extensions.
– Attorney J.R. Howell stated the ruling did not adjudicate the legality of LinkedIn’s surveillance practices and is considering appeals or state court filings.
– The legal dispute originated from a report by Fairlinked alleging illegal computer searching, which was linked to competitors like Teamfluence.
Judge Vince Chhabria of the US District Court for the Northern District of California has thrown out two lawsuits against LinkedIn, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to proceed. The decision marks a major win for Microsoft’s subsidiary, as Chhabria found that neither accuser could prove they had installed browser extensions that actually sent private data to the professional networking site.
In his Tuesday ruling, the judge permitted the plaintiffs to revise their complaints but cast serious doubt on their prospects. He stressed that individuals choose to install these tools, which are designed to share information with websites. “Given LinkedIn’s further arguments that users voluntarily download browser extensions, which by their nature intentionally expose data to websites, it seems unlikely that the plaintiffs will ever be able to allege a privacy violation, much less prevail at the end of the day,” Chhabria wrote.
The legal battle began in April when California residents Nicholas Farrell and Jeff Ganan filed separate class action suits. After the federal dismissal, Ganan’s lawyer, J. R. Howell, said the team is evaluating its options. They are weighing whether to file the claims in a California state court, which might have different rules, or to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Howell maintained that the federal ruling did not approve of LinkedIn’s methods. “The federal court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the LinkedIn users’ claims,” Howell told Ars Technica. “The court did not adjudicate whether LinkedIn’s surveillance practices were lawful. The ruling is not a vindication of the mass surveillance program alleged in our complaint.”
This dispute, known as “BrowserGate,” started after an April investigative report accused LinkedIn of illegally scanning user computers. Although LinkedIn acknowledged it could scan browsers for extension data, the company pointed to its privacy policy, which already disclosed the use of cookies and similar technologies to collect information about user browsers and add-ons.
The original report was authored by Fairlinked, a German group that describes itself as a trade association and advocacy organization for commercial LinkedIn users. Reports indicate Fairlinked is run by people connected to Teamfluence, an Estonian software company. Teamfluence previously sued LinkedIn in Munich after its CEO was banned from the platform, underscoring ongoing tensions between third-party developers and the social network regarding data access and scraping.
(Source: Ars Technica)