From Ars Technica · · 2m
LinkedIn wins the BrowserGate lawsuits
A judge tossed two class actions over LinkedIn scanning browser extensions, and the reason was standing, not surveillance.
In brief
A judge tossed two class actions over LinkedIn scanning browser extensions, and the reason was standing, not surveillance. A privacy suit dies early if you can't name the specific private thing that was taken from you. Originally reported by Ars Technica.
LinkedIn beats both suits
A federal judge granted Microsoft-owned LinkedIn's motion to dismiss two class actions over its scanning of users' browser extensions.
Nobody named their own harm
Judge Vince Chhabria found neither plaintiff alleged they had extensions installed that actually sent private information to LinkedIn.
“had browser extensions installed that conveyed private information to LinkedIn”
Amend, but don't get hopeful
Chhabria let the plaintiffs refile while saying he doubts a plausible privacy claim exists, since people install extensions voluntarily and extensions expose data by design.
“it seems unlikely that the plaintiffs will ever be able to allege a privacy violation”
The plaintiffs' next move
Nicholas Farrell and Jeff Ganan sued separately in April. Ganan's lawyer is weighing California state court, which has looser standing rules, or a Ninth Circuit appeal.
Not a ruling on the merits
Ganan's attorney J.R. Howell stressed the court only found it lacked jurisdiction and never decided whether LinkedIn's practices were legal.
“The ruling is not a vindication of the mass surveillance program alleged in our complaint.”
Where BrowserGate came from
The suits followed a report by Fairlinked, a German group that appears to share people with Teamfluence, an Estonian firm that sued LinkedIn in Munich after its CEO was banned.
The lawyer wore two hats
Howell also serves as US counsel for Fairlinked, and told the court his investigative work on BrowserGate happened before he filed Ganan's complaint.
LinkedIn calls it payback
LinkedIn argued Teamfluence markets a scraping plug-in, lost in a German tribunal, and then manufactured a privacy controversy as retaliation.
“he has now embarked on an international retaliation campaign by manufacturing a fake privacy controversy”
Hypothetical snooping isn't standing
Listing categories of data that could theoretically leak wasn't enough. Ganan argued the harm was "the unpermitted probe, not its yield," and the judge disagreed.
“a plaintiff must identify 'embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected by' the defendant”
LinkedIn's defense: it's public
The company says it only detects what extensions openly announce to every website, discloses this in its privacy policy, and uses it to block scrapers.
“The information is publicly available and in no way private.”
In short
A privacy suit dies early if you can't name the specific private thing that was taken from you.
