"LinkedIn's public response does not meaningfully deny the core conduct alleged in the complaint. The real question is not whether LinkedIn says it was fighting abuse of the terms of service. The question is whether users were actually informed, in any clear and meaningful way, that LinkedIn would secretly probe their browsers for installed extensions, extract session-linked data, and make that data available to undisclosed third parties whose own uses could extend beyond a one-time compliance check."
"A reasonable user does not consent to mass browser surveillance and third-party data exploitation through vague references to security, cookies, add-ons, or other technical jargon."
LinkedIn is currently facing multiple lawsuits alleging that it engaged in data collection practices without user consent. The Farrell lawsuit references the BrowserGate report and describes Fairlinked as a European advocacy group, omitting its connection to Teamfluence. The Ganan lawsuit, while not mentioning BrowserGate, makes similar allegations based on an analysis of LinkedIn's client-side code. Lawyers assert that LinkedIn's public response does not adequately deny the core allegations regarding user consent and data exploitation.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]