As far as I understand it, they were not forced to respect the DNT header in their processes. They were only forbidden to claim that the DNT header would not be legally binding and therefore not respected.
The court did not force LinkedIn in any way to actually respect or at least consider the DNT-header in their processes.
The court did not force LinkedIn in any way to actually respect or at least consider the DNT-header in their processes.
This is how I (being a German native-speaker) understood this article by the usually very reliable heise online: https://www.heise.de/news/Do-Not-Track-LinkedIn-darf-nicht-m...