[dahart]

> Also not a surprise when a judge orders you to restore access because your agreement is invalid.

That's not what happened here, there has been no ruling on any agreement, and the injunction order that was given only applies to HiQ, only temporarily, and nobody else. It is not a statement on the validity of EULAs or of LinkedIn's EULA, and it is not a statement on whether LinkedIn is being anti-competetive. It is an injunction and nothing else.

[shakna]

> That's not what happened here, there has been no ruling on any agreement, and the injunction order that was given only applies to HiQ, only temporarily, and nobody else.

I didn't say it was.

> It is not a statement on the validity of EULAs or of LinkedIn's EULA, and it is not a statement on whether LinkedIn is being anti-competetive. It is an injunction and nothing else.

An injunction is not given without merit. It has meaning.

Injunctions are regularly denied when the arguments are clearly in one direction or another.

The injunction strongly suggests that the judge finds hiQ's argument, that LinkedIn's public pages are not bound by the EULA, to "not be without merit".

No precedent has been set, but the conversation is definitively in the opening stages.