A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs has spotlighted the thorny legal issues involved in unauthorized web scraping of data from public websites. While some may interpret the LinkedIn decision as greenlighting such activity, this would be a mistake. On close review of the decision, and in light of other decisions that have held unauthorized web scrapers liable, the conduct remains vulnerable to legal challenge.

hiQ and LinkedIn

Founded in 2012, hiQ is a data analytics company that uses automated bots to scrape information from LinkedIn’s website. hiQ targets the information that users have made public for all to see in their LinkedIn profile. hiQ pays nothing to LinkedIn for the data, which it uses, along with its own predictive algorithm, to yield “people analytics,” which it then sells to clients.

In May 2017, LinkedIn sent a cease-and-desist letter to hiQ demanding that it stop accessing and copying data from LinkedIn’s servers. LinkedIn also implemented technical measures to prevent hiQ from accessing the site, which hiQ circumvented.

Shortly thereafter, with its entire business model under threat, hiQ filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking injunctive relief and a declaration that LinkedIn had no right to prevent it from accessing public LinkedIn member profiles.
Continue Reading

Based on copyright infringement, emotional distress and other claims, a federal district court in California awarded $6.4 million to a victim of revenge porn, the posting of explicit material without the subject’s consent. The judgment is believed to be one of the largest awards relating to revenge porn. A Socially Aware post that we wrote

As Socially Aware readers know, social media is transforming the way companies interact with consumers. Learn how to make the most of these online opportunities while minimizing your company’s legal risks at Practising Law Institute’s (PLI) 2018 Social Media conference, to be held in San Francisco on Thursday, February 1st, and in New

Often derided as clickbait, listicles get a bum rap. They can be light on substantive content, sure, but sometimes that’s a good thing, especially for the busy readers of legal blogs, who would do well to treat themselves to some easily browsable reading material once in a while.

And so, at Socially Aware, we’ve made an annual tradition of curating a “List of Lists”—an inventory of the predictions, retrospectives and roundups that we think will be of most interest to our readership.

We’ll update this page throughout the month as additional pertinent content is published.

Happy 2018!

Technology & Social Media Law

The Top 10 Legal Tech Stories of 2017

UK Internet Law Developments to Look Out for in 2018

Social Media (General)

Most Popular Social Media Apps

7 Social Media Trends That Dominated 2017

8 Things We Learned About Social Media in 2017

7 Social Media Trends That Will Dominate 2018

10 Social-Media Trends to Prepare for in 2018

8 Top Social Media Trends to Look Out for in 2018

Social Media Trends to Watch For in 2018

Top 5 Social Media Trends to Put Into Practice in 2018

The Web 100


Continue Reading

With much fanfare, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to take actions relating to so-called “social media influencers” who allegedly fail to disclose material connections to the products or brands they endorse. Recurring enforcement actions and guidance—and the FTC’s ongoing promotion of its own efforts, such as through Twitter chats—make it clear that the FTC believes that its message has still not been heard by all of the players in this advertising ecosystem, including influencers themselves.

In short, any endorsements in any medium where the endorser has a material connection of any kind to the endorsed advertiser must be disclosed.

The most recent developments include an enforcement action against a company—and two of its officers—in connection with endorsements of the company made by the officers in YouTube videos and in social media.  Before turning to this case, however, we provide a brief overview of how the FTC has gotten here.
Continue Reading

A federal appeals court in Miami held that a judge needn’t necessarily recuse herself from a case being argued by a lawyer with whom the judge is merely Facebook “friends.”

Bills in both houses of Congress propose amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to clarify that it doesn’t insulate website operators from liability

More and more often, the organizers of conferences, trade shows and events are taking advantage of beacon technology to track attendees’ movement throughout their conventions’ sessions and event spaces. Although no U.S. law specifically prohibits such tracking, the FTC has made it clear that companies need prior consent to engage in such tracking.

Find out

One year since agreeing with the European Commission to remove hate speech within 24 hours of receiving a complaint about it, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube are removing flagged content an average of 59% of the time, the EC reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a catering company

Twitter updated its online Privacy Policy to disclose that Twitter will be personalizing content and facilitating interest-based advertising by sharing information about its users’ online activity both on and off the microblogging site.

Since YouTube resolved to give brands greater control over the kind of content that their ads appear alongside, many of the

A nice overview of the rules on researching jurors’ social media accounts in various jurisdictions from Law.com.

The importance of appearing at the top of Google search results, especially on mobile devices, is driving retailers to spend more and more on the search engine’s product listing ads, which include not just text but