Comment by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

HiQ points out that data scraping is a common method of gathering information, used by search engines, academic researchers, and many others. According to hiQ, letting established entities that already have accumulated large user data sets decide who can scrape that data from otherwise public websites gives those entities outsized control over how such data may be put to use. We agree with the district court that giving companies like LinkedIn free rein to decide, on any basis, who can collect and use data—data that the companies do not own, that they otherwise make publicly available to viewers, and that the companies themselves collect and use—risks the possible creation of information monopolies that would disserve the public interest.
AI Verified source (2019)
Like Share on X 8mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified. The IAPP article at the cited source reproduces the two passages verbatim at lines 67-70, with the second introduced separately, and the same language appears in the official Ninth Circuit opinion in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., filed September 9, 2019, at pp. 34-35 (lines 1105-1140). The attribution to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is correct. Note: this block combines two separate excerpts from the opinion rather than one uninterrupted passage. ([iapp.org](https://iapp.org/news/a/linkedin-v-hiq-and-the-transatlantic-privacy-divide/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 19d ago
AI Unverifiable Source URL (iapp.org article on LinkedIn v. hiQ) returns HTTP 403 from WebFetch. Web search across multiple legal sources confirms the Ninth Circuit's hiQ v. LinkedIn opinion (by Judge Berzon) contains exactly this reasoning: giving companies like LinkedIn 'free rein to decide, on any basis, who can collect and use data—data that the companies do not own, that they otherwise make publicly available to viewers, and that the companies themselves collect and use—risks the possible creation of information monopolies that would disserve the public interest.' Vote (For 'Grant developers the right to interoperate with large platforms without permission') aligns with the Ninth Circuit's anti-gatekeeping reasoning. Marking ai_unverifiable per protocol because I cannot directly fetch the source page. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit