Legal Opinion

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 14, 2017No. Case No. 17-cv-03301-EMCPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Docket No. 23

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge ■

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff hiQ initiated this action after Defendant Linkedln issued a cease and desist letter and attempted to terminate hiQ’s ability to access otherwise publicly available information on profiles of Linked-ln users. The letter threatens action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Linkedln also employed various blocking techniques designed to prevent hiQ’s automated data collection methods. Linkedln brought this action after years of tolerating hiQ’s…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. CottrellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  3. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Blum v. YaretskySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Sandvig v. SessionsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
  2. 3Taps, Inc. v. Linkedin CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
  3. Brodsky v. Apple Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2020
  4. Cleveland v. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research LtdDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2020
  5. Edwards Vacuum LLC v. Hoffman Instrumentation Supply, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2021

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API