hiQ asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop Linkedin from denying them access, won it, and this is the result of Linkedin's appeal of that injunction. This is not the end of the case.
The title is wrong. The 9th Circuit just ruled that hiQ has a decent enough argument to move forward. The question of whether them scraping a public site can violate the CFAA is not settled.
> We therefore conclude that hiQ has raised a serious
question as to whether the reference to access “without
authorization” limits the scope of the statutory coverage to
computer information for which authorization or access
permission, such as password authentication, is generally
required
> The data hiQ seeks to access
is not owned by LinkedIn and has not been demarcated by
LinkedIn as private using such an authorization system. HiQ
has therefore raised serious questions about whether
LinkedIn may invoke the CFAA to preempt hiQ’s possibly
meritorious tortious interference claim.
Note the tone of the language used in the ruling. The judge makes it pretty clear that nothing is final here.
The title is wrong. The 9th Circuit just ruled that hiQ has a decent enough argument to move forward. The question of whether them scraping a public site can violate the CFAA is not settled.
> We therefore conclude that hiQ has raised a serious question as to whether the reference to access “without authorization” limits the scope of the statutory coverage to computer information for which authorization or access permission, such as password authentication, is generally required
> The data hiQ seeks to access is not owned by LinkedIn and has not been demarcated by LinkedIn as private using such an authorization system. HiQ has therefore raised serious questions about whether LinkedIn may invoke the CFAA to preempt hiQ’s possibly meritorious tortious interference claim.
Note the tone of the language used in the ruling. The judge makes it pretty clear that nothing is final here.