We contacted Teamfluence today and will update this article if we hear back.
LinkedIn said, “Unfortunately, this is a case of a man who lost in court, but wants to file a lawsuit again in the court of public opinion, regardless of accuracy.”
Lawyer: LinkedIn “does not meaningfully refute” the allegation.
It is not unusual for lawyers to file class action lawsuits shortly after explosive claims are made by media outlets or advocacy groups. The Farrell lawsuit against LinkedIn extensively cites the BrowserGate report and describes FairLinked as a “European advocacy group” without mentioning its relationship with TeamFluence. We contacted the lawyers who filed the lawsuit and will update this article when we receive a response.
The Gannon lawsuit does not mention the BrowserGate report but makes similar allegations. JR Howell, the Santa Monica attorney who filed the complaint, told Ars today that the lawsuit’s allegations were “based on the firm’s own review and analysis of LinkedIn’s client-side code and related technical behavior, as well as the applicable US and California legal framework.”
Howell told Ars that LinkedIn’s response to the claims does not refute the central allegation regarding lack of consent.
“LinkedIn’s public response does not meaningfully refute the core conduct alleged in the complaint,” Howell told Ars. “The real question is not whether LinkedIn says it is fighting abuses of its Terms of Service. The question is whether users were actually informed, in any clear and meaningful way, that LinkedIn would be scanning their browsers for covertly installed extensions, extracting session-linked data, and making that data available to unnamed third parties whose own use could go beyond a one-time compliance check.”
Howell argues that “the reasonable user does not consent to mass browser surveillance and third-party data exploitation through vague references to security, cookies, add-ons, or abuse prevention.”
Both lawsuits allege that LinkedIn violated the California Constitution’s protections against privacy violations and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Gannon lawsuit also alleges that LinkedIn violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Both lawsuits seek financial damages and an injunction forcing the company to change its data-collection and disclosure practices.
<a href