LinkedIn faces class-action lawsuit over browser extension scanning.
Two class-action lawsuits have been filed against LinkedIn alleging that it secretly monitored users through browser extension scans. LinkedIn claims it monitored the extensions users were using, but it refutes the plaintiffs' claims, stating that its purpose was to find extensions that violated its terms of service.
Lawsuit 1 | PDF | Linked In | Http Cookie
lawsuit 2 | PDF | Legal Remedy | Damages
https://www.scribd.com/document/1023125190/lawsuit-2
LinkedIn Hit With Class-Action Lawsuits Over Browser-Extension Scanning | PCMag
https://www.pcmag.com/news/linkedin-hit-with-class-action-lawsuits-over-browser-extension-scanning
LinkedIn Data Practices Under Fire Over Hidden Extension Scans
https://www.cxtoday.com/security-privacy-compliance/linkedin-browsergate-privacy-lawsuit/
The lawsuit was triggered by a research project called 'BrowserGate' conducted by an organization called Fairlinked eV. The research analyzed a total of 6,222 browser extensions and revealed that when users accessed LinkedIn pages, LinkedIn's JavaScript executed code on the user's browser and collected information about installed browser extensions.
The code is said to detect thousands of specific extensions and determine the user's environment by sending requests to check if 'a specific internal file exists.' Fairlinked eV argued that 'because LinkedIn knows users' real names, workplaces, and job titles, it may be possible to infer personal data such as religion, politics, and health status from the information about extensions, which could violate privacy laws in various countries.'
'BrowserGate,' a research project claiming that your PC is illegally searched every time you access LinkedIn - GIGAZINE
Following these findings, two class-action lawsuits were filed. Both were filed in California and alleg that LinkedIn violated privacy laws by running hidden scripts to collect user information without consent.
One of the plaintiffs stated, 'Any reasonable person, even after reading the privacy policy regarding URLs, browser data, and extensions, would not understand that LinkedIn secretly investigates a user's browser and lists or infers the extensions they have installed.'
In response to the lawsuit, LinkedIn countered that 'the controversy is exaggerated and misrepresents practices that are already disclosed in our privacy policy.'
LinkedIn says that the extension scans are performed 'to detect misuse and ensure site stability,' with a particular aim to eliminate extensions that perform web scraping. LinkedIn stated, 'We disclose in our privacy policy that we scan extensions. We do not use the data we collect to infer sensitive information about our members.'
Furthermore, LinkedIn is also casting a critical eye on Fairlinked eV, the investigation that formed the basis of the lawsuit.
Fairlinked eV states that it 'represents commercial LinkedIn users,' but one of its board members is listed as 'S. Morell,' which is believed to be Steven Morell, the founder of Teamfluence, a tool that helps companies monitor LinkedIn activity.
According to LinkedIn, they previously restricted Teamfluence accounts to curb web scraping by Teamfluence, after which Mr. Morell filed a lawsuit in Germany demanding that LinkedIn lift the restrictions. However, Mr. Morell's claims were completely rejected in that lawsuit.
LinkedIn responded to the Fairlinked eV survey by stating, 'This is a case where someone who lost in court is trying to use public opinion as a weapon to file another lawsuit, disregarding accuracy.'
Fairlinked eV stated, 'The lawsuit in question is unrelated to this monitoring activity. The previous lawsuit concerned account suspension, and BrowserGate was never mentioned in the proceedings. LinkedIn is suggesting that it won, but only the application for a preliminary injunction was denied, and both parties have appealed. The litigation is ongoing.'
Related Posts:
in Software, Posted by log1p_kr