Interesting. You appear to be a lawyer or in that realm, so I'm curious your take on it - though I also understand if you don't want to publicly make statements or anything.
i.e is the common take that people have of "scraping is legal after HiQ vs LinkedIn" just completely wrong?
This case never went to trial but it could have. The Court denied LinkedIn's motion for summary judgment as to hiQ's waiver and estoppel defenses to LinkedIn's breach of contract claims.
Calling this Order on the parties' motions for summary judgment "precedent" would be a mistake. Nor is the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction "precedent". The Ninth Circuit decision is precedent.
People in this thread are stating that hiQ was "defeated". Of course. However if "defeat" means a party settling, paying a large sum and agreeing to refrain from certain conduct in the future, then Google and Facebook have been "defeated" many times.
Having "web scraping" remain a "gray area" by limiting the number of final decisions and thereby the amount of precedent might be beneficial to so-called "tech" companies. Putting aside hiQ's predicament, if more of these cases went to trial instead of settling, then we might have some clarity.
We should be thanking whomever funded hiQ's litigation costs. Getting the Ninth Circuit decision was something every web user can be thankful for.
i.e is the common take that people have of "scraping is legal after HiQ vs LinkedIn" just completely wrong?
Edit: oh, I didn't realize you wrote quite a bit here: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...