[KieranMac]

Actually, as I re-read this, this how it should go:

-hiQ sues LinkedIn for injunctive relief in the ND Cal., win on its CFAA claim.

-LinkedIn appeals to 9th Circuit, which sides with hiQ on CFAA claim

-hiQ loses its antitrust claims at the motion to dismiss stage

(somewhere in here hiQ goes out of business, but rich benefactor keeps paying its legal bills)

-LinkedIn continues with breach of contract and other claims, wins at motion to dismiss

-LinkedIn appeals to the Supremes, who vacates and remands back to 9th Circuit after Van Buren

-9th Circuit sides with hiQ a 2nd time on the CFAA claim

-injunction is dissolved

-hiQ suffers near-total defeat at summary judgment

-hiQ waves the white flag, agrees to permanent injunction agreeing to nearly all of LinkedIn's demands and pays LinkedIn 500k

[rendaw]

So does that mean the conclusion is that scraping is bad? Or did the 9th circuit establish that scraping is OK and hiQ suffered defeat on some other basis?

[beardedwizard]

Clarification: it's the breach of terms of service that meets this bar for breach of contract in this case

[Klonoar]

If this is the case, I guess what I'm really wondering is: does the existence of the EULA cause this, or was it HiQ having "turks" sign in to do it - thus accepting the EULA?

[beardedwizard]

I think that's exactly it, they had automation logging in, which meant they accepted the tos, then violated it. The govt has sided with business in these cases (it seems)

[beardedwizard]

It seems to me they were defeated on the terms of some other contract they had with LI, not the scraping?

[Klonoar]

Thank you, that's certainly more in-depth than my understanding was. Very helpful to read.

[djbusby]

Who's the rich benefactor?