Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 1 of 23
`
`C. Brandon Wisoff (State Bar No. 121930)
`bwisoff@fbm.com
`Deepak Gupta (State Bar No. 226991)
`dgupta@fbm.com
`Rebecca H. Stephens (State Bar No. 299234)
`rstephens@fbm.com
`Jeffrey G. Lau (State Bar No. 281629)
`jlau@fbm.com
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 954-4400
`Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
`
`Laurence H. Tribe* (State Bar No. 39441)
`Carl M. Loeb University Professor and
`Professor of Constitutional Law
`Harvard Law School
`1575 Massachusetts Avenue
`Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
`Telephone: (617) 495-1767
`Pro hac vice pending
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff hiQ Labs, Inc.
`
`hiQ Labs, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`LinkedIn Corp.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT UNDER 22 U.S.C. § 2201
`THAT PLAINTIFF HAS NOT
`VIOLATED: (1) THE COMPUTER
`FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. §
`1030); (2) THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM
`COPYRIGHT ACT (17 U.S.C. §1201);(3)
`COMMON LAW TRESPASS TO
`CHATTELS; OR (4) CAL. PENAL CODE
`§ 502(c);
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ENJOIN: (1)
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
`CONTRACT AND PROSPECTIVE
`ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; (2) UNFAIR
`COMPETITION (CAL. BUS. & PROF.
`CODE § 17200); (3) PROMISSORY
`ESTOPPEL; AND (4) VIOLATION OF
`CALIFORNIA FREE SPEECH LAW;
`AND RELATED MONETARY RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff hiQ Labs, Inc. (“hiQ”), by its undersigned counsel, hereby brings this action
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`*Affiliation noted for identification purposes only.
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 2 of 23
`
`against Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“Defendant” or “LinkedIn”) and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202, and for injunctive relief under California law. hiQ seeks a declaration
`
`from the Court that hiQ has not violated and will not violate federal or state law by accessing and
`
`copying wholly public information from LinkedIn’s website. hiQ further seeks injunctive relief
`
`preventing LinkedIn from misusing the law to destroy hiQ’s business, and give itself a competitive
`
`advantage through unlawful and unfair business practices and suppression of California
`
`Constitutional free speech fair guarantees. hiQ also seeks damages to the extent applicable.
`
`2.
`
`hiQ is a tech startup which collects and analyzes public profile information on
`
`LinkedIn in order to provide its clients – mostly large companies – with insights about their
`
`employees, such as which employees are likely to be poached by a competitor or which skills its
`
`employees have. hiQ does not analyze the private sections of LinkedIn, such as profile
`
`information that is only visible when you are signed-in as a member, or member private data that
`
`is visible only when you are “connected” to a member. Rather, the information that is at issue
`
`here is wholly public information visible to anyone with an internet connection.
`
`3.
`
`LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network, with over 500 million
`
`members. LinkedIn has abruptly, unlawfully and without cause denied hiQ access to the portion
`
`of the LinkedIn website containing wholly public member profiles. hiQ relies on that public data,
`
`available nowhere but LinkedIn, for its data analytics business that serves clients including eBay,
`
`Capital One, and GoDaddy.
`
`4.
`
`On May 23, 2017, LinkedIn sent hiQ a cease-and-desist letter ordering hiQ to stop
`
`accessing LinkedIn and stating that hiQ’s continued access to the website would violate the
`
`Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and California Penal Code §
`
`502(c) and constitute common law trespass to chattels. This came as a shock to hiQ, as LinkedIn
`
`has been aware of hiQ’s activities for several years and never once objected to hiQ’s use of this
`
`public information.
`
`5.
`
`LinkedIn asserts as pretext that it needs to protect LinkedIn member data even
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`2
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 3 of 23
`
`though LinkedIn members have expressly made that information public and LinkedIn has
`
`identified no harm to itself or its members. LinkedIn publicly acknowledges on its own website
`
`that the public profile data belongs to LinkedIn members, not to LinkedIn, and that each member
`
`is free to choose the level of public disclosure allowed for his or her own information. LinkedIn
`
`members can choose to (1) keep their profile information private; (2) share only with their direct
`
`connections; (3) share with connections within three degrees of separation; (4) allow access only
`
`to other signed-in LinkedIn members, or (5) allow access to everyone, even members of the
`
`general public who may have no LinkedIn account and who can access the information without
`
`signing in or using any password. It is only this fifth category of information – wholly public
`
`profiles – that is at issue here: hiQ only accesses the profiles that LinkedIn members have made
`
`available to the general public.
`
`6.
`
`hiQ uses that information for data analytics that LinkedIn members’ employers in
`
`turn use to retain employees and to create better career and internal mobility paths for such
`
`employees. Thus, far from harming LinkedIn members, hiQ’s access promotes precisely the type
`
`of professional and employment opportunities that lead LinkedIn members to make their profiles
`
`public in the first place. Yet, LinkedIn is now threatening hiQ with legal action based on the
`
`above described theories if hiQ accesses this information which is otherwise publicly available to
`
`everyone else on the planet with an internet connection.
`
`7.
`
`The Court should enjoin LinkedIn from denying hiQ access to its website because
`
`LinkedIn’s real motivation is obviously anticompetitive: to prevent anyone but LinkedIn from
`
`being able to use public information for data analytics. LinkedIn for years has known about hiQ
`
`and its business, has attended data analytics conferences at hiQ and has even accepted awards
`
`from hiQ at these conferences. But LinkedIn has now made some public statements about
`
`entering the data analytics business, and has abruptly (as of May 24, 2017) decided to terminate
`
`hiQ’s access.
`
`8.
`
`LinkedIn’s entire stated complaint is that hiQ “copies” the data its members have
`
`made public, but LinkedIn has asserted no copyright or other exclusive propriety interest in the
`
`data and it clearly has none. Moreover, hiQ does not collect all (or even a substantial proportion)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`3
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 4 of 23
`
`of the member profiles on LinkedIn, nor does it compete with LinkedIn by creating a substitute
`
`social network or job posting forum. Rather, hiQ pulls data for a limited subset of users – usually
`
`its client’s employees – and uses scientific methodology to analyze the information. hiQ then
`
`provides its clients with this new data that it produced in a form that is by necessity very different
`
`from the public profile pages on LinkedIn.
`
`9.
`
`Because LinkedIn has no legitimate copyright claim, it has instead threatened to
`
`sue hiQ under federal and state laws pertaining to hacking and unauthorized computer and
`
`network access in order to intimidate hiQ and force it to stop accessing these public profiles. But
`
`LinkedIn cannot use those laws for an improper purpose to obtain exclusive proprietary control
`
`over wholly public data in which it otherwise has no exclusive interest and which hiQ, and anyone
`
`else, can freely access on the world wide web with no log-in credentials or password. Indeed,
`
`LinkedIn would not have that data on its website in the first place but for its promise to LinkedIn
`
`members that they can publicly disclose that information on LinkedIn for all the world to see and
`
`use.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff hiQ is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LinkedIn is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`because Plaintiff’s first and second claims for relief seek a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`2201 and 2202 that Plaintiff has not violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §
`
`1030, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 1201.
`
`13.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
`
`third through eleventh claims for relief because they arise out of the same common set of facts and
`
`conduct as Plaintiff’s federal claims for relief.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant LinkedIn in this action
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`4
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 5 of 23
`
`because, on information and belief, LinkedIn’s corporate headquarters and principal place of
`
`business is within this judicial district, and LinkedIn has engaged in substantial business within
`
`this district.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) because
`
`Defendant LinkedIn conducts substantial business within this District and a substantial part of the
`
`acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Venue is further proper
`
`in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) because this action relates to copyrights and
`
`Defendant LinkedIn resides in this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), this case is an intellectual property
`
`action appropriate for assignment on a district-wide basis.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`About hiQ Labs and its Services
`
`17.
`
`hiQ was formed in July 2012 and has raised $14.5 million in two rounds of
`
`funding. It presently has 24 employees, the majority of whom are in its San Francisco office, and
`
`11 of whom have advanced degrees, including several PhDs. hiQ sells Fortune 500 clients
`
`“people analytics” – i.e. insights to their workforce – that it deduces by performing computerized
`
`analyses of the public profile information available on LinkedIn. hiQ provides its customers two
`
`specific analytics services: (a) “Keeper,” which tells employers which of their employees are at
`
`the greatest risk of being recruited away, and (b) “Skill Mapper,” a summary of the breadth and
`
`depth of aggregate or individual skills possessed.
`
`18.
`
`hiQ uses the public profile section of the LinkedIn website as raw data for its
`
`analysis and has historically used a variety of software and manual means to gather this
`
`information. hiQ does not analyze the private sections of LinkedIn, such as profile information
`
`that is only visible when you are signed-in as a member, or member private data that is visible
`
`only when you are “connected” to a member. hiQ does not republish the information it collects
`
`from LinkedIn, but instead applies analytics to create new business intelligence for its clients.
`
`hiQ’s services thus do not impair or impede the value of the LinkedIn social network. Rather they
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`5
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 6 of 23
`
`make it more valuable to have such a profile – an employer using the “Keeper” product might give
`
`an employee a “stay bonus” or a career development or internal mobility opportunity, or
`
`SkillMapper may demonstrate that its workforce lacks depth in a particular skill area, which could
`
`lead the employer to offer its employees free training to make up for that deficit.
`
`The LinkedIn Professional Network and The Public Member Profile Portion of the Website.
`
`19.
`
`The core of LinkedIn’s business is a professional network that aggregates the
`
`profile information of about half a billion professionals, their interrelationships, their posts, and
`
`their cross-endorsements. LinkedIn states that the purpose of the service is to “promote economic
`
`opportunity” and provide a place for professionals “to meet, exchange, ideas, learn and find
`
`opportunities….” See Exhibit 1 (LinkedIn User Agreement).
`
`20.
`
`LinkedIn member profiles contain resume information such as education, skills,
`
`publications, certifications, and employment history. Members can connect their LinkedIn
`
`profiles to those of colleagues around the world. LinkedIn’s collection of profiles is a one-of-a-
`
`kind resource. It is the single largest, most up-to-date and authoritative repository about the
`
`world’s professional community. There is no comparable data source anywhere else in the world.
`
`21.
`
`LinkedIn admittedly does not own the data that its members decide to share
`
`publicly on LinkedIn’s website. LinkedIn explains to members that “you own the content and
`
`information that you submit.” See Exhibit 1 (LinkedIn User Agreement) at 3.1. LinkedIn is
`
`unequivocal that members control their profiles: “You control the visibility and reach of your
`
`LinkedIn profile.” See Exhibit 2 (Public & Private Profiles | LinkedIn Help). LinkedIn gives
`
`members the ability and right to specify which portions of their profiles will be visible to their
`
`direct connections, their network (those within three degrees of separation), all LinkedIn members,
`
`and the “public.” The “public” setting (which is at issue here) gives access to “[a]ll LinkedIn
`
`members as well as others who find you through search engines (e.g. Google, Bing) or other
`
`services.” Exhibit 3 (showing public profile settings). Public profiles may be reached via third-
`
`party services (e.g. Google and Bing) and directly via a web address (URL) that LinkedIn creates
`
`for its members. Thus, LinkedIn acknowledges that a public setting will permit access for anyone
`
`in the world with an internet connection. The User Agreement explains that “Members and/or
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`6
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 7 of 23
`
`Visitors may access and share your content and information, consistent with your settings and
`
`degree of connection with them.” Exhibit 1 (LinkedIn User Agreement).
`
`22.
`
`LinkedIn has effectively become a public forum where professionals can meet and
`
`exchange ideas, information, and news articles. LinkedIn describes itself as a “community” and
`
`users are able to post publicly, share other members’ posts, and comment on other members’
`
`posts. As discussed more fully herein in the Eleventh Claim for Relief, LinkedIn cannot –
`
`consistent with the free speech clause of the California Constitution – selectively exclude hiQ
`
`from this “public” forum, even if LinkedIn’s servers are considered “private” property. The
`
`California Supreme Court has definitively interpreted these constitutionally guaranteed free speech
`
`rights as precluding an owner of private property from prohibiting such access when the property
`
`has been opened to the public and constitutes a public forum. The United States Supreme Court
`
`has in turn upheld this California constitutional right as against a challenge that it amounts to a
`
`“taking” of private property under the United States Constitution. LinkedIn cannot have it both
`
`ways even on its own web servers: promising a public forum and public access on the one hand,
`
`and then selectively excluding members of the public on the other.
`
`23.
`
`Since its founding in 2002, LinkedIn has created numerous successful revenue
`
`streams, including selling services to corporations that help with their recruiting and sales
`
`processes. As of hiQ’s launch in 2012, LinkedIn’s annual revenues were on the order of nearly $1
`
`billion, a number that had nearly quadrupled by the end of 2016. In late 2016, LinkedIn was
`
`purchased by Microsoft Corporation.
`
`LinkedIn’s Surprising Cease and Desist Letter To hiQ
`
`24.
`
`LinkedIn has known of hiQ since at least 2015 when it started participating in
`
`hiQ’s annual Elevate conference. The hiQ Elevate conference was designed to build a community
`
`around the emerging field of people analytics and has provided a regular forum for participants to
`
`share insights and disseminate best practices. LinkedIn has sent representatives to each iteration
`
`of that conference since hiQ’s founding. hiQ has spoken freely about its public data collection
`
`from LinkedIn at Elevate, so LinkedIn has always understood what hiQ does. Over the years,
`
`LinkedIn has itself participated regularly in hiQ Elevate events. At a 2016 Elevate conference,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`7
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 8 of 23
`
`LinkedIn employee Lorenzo Canlas received special recognition and accepted the hiQ Elevate
`
`“Impact Award.”
`
`25.
`
`Given LinkedIn’s awareness of hiQ over the years and its seeming support of the
`
`business, hiQ was surprised when on May 23, 2017, without any forewarning, LinkedIn’s legal
`
`counsel emailed a letter to hiQ, stating that hiQ was improperly “access[ing] and copy[ing]”
`
`LinkedIn public profile information. The letter demanded that hiQ “[c]ease and desist accessing
`
`or attempting to access or use LinkedIn’s website, computers, computer systems, computer
`
`network, computer programs, and data stored therein.” See Exhibit 4 (Cease-and-Desist Letter) at
`
`2. LinkedIn’s letter stated that hiQ was in violation of the LinkedIn User Agreement, state
`
`trespass law, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Penal Code 502, and the Digital
`
`Millennium Copyright Act. Id. The letter also stated that any further access to the site would be
`
`“without permission” and “without authorization.” Further, LinkedIn stated it has implemented
`
`“technical measures” to block hiQ from the site. Id.
`
`26.
`
`The LinkedIn User Agreement does not even apply to members of the general
`
`public who access LinkedIn’s website without an account or sign-in credentials. Moreover,
`
`LinkedIn itself ignores many of its own user terms, selectively allowing access and copying when
`
`it wants and purporting to enforce terms only when it is advantageous to LinkedIn. Thus,
`
`LinkedIn user terms tell members that they control who can see and use their public profiles, but
`
`LinkedIn is here deciding that hiQ is excluded from that otherwise public access. In addition,
`
`other for-profit companies, including Google and Bing, by necessity copy and index large portions
`
`of the public portions or LinkedIn’s website and display that information in their search engine
`
`results for all the world to see.
`
`27.
`
`After receiving the cease-and-desist letter, hiQ promptly retained counsel who
`
`contacted LinkedIn to explain hiQ’s belief that it had a right to access public pages, that its
`
`business is synergistic to LinkedIn, that the effect of LinkedIn’s letter would devastate hiQ, and to
`
`understand whether LinkedIn believed it was being harmed in any way. LinkedIn’s counsel was
`
`unable to point to any interference or impairment with LinkedIn’s servers from hiQ’s accessing
`
`the site, and conceded that various other commercial enterprises, including Google and Yahoo! are
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`8
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 9 of 23
`
`permitted to use automated software to access the LinkedIn site. When hiQ asked counsel for
`
`LinkedIn whether LinkedIn is planning to offer services to compete with hiQ’s Keeper and Skill
`
`Mapper analytics, he stated that he did not know the answer to that question. When asked what
`
`copyright or propriety interest LinkedIn is claiming in the public data displayed by members, he
`
`stated clearly that LinkedIn is asserting no copyright claim.
`
`28.
`
`LinkedIn is thus improperly using the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Digital
`
`Millennium Copyright Act and related state penal code and trespass law, not as a shield – as
`
`intended by those laws – to prevent harmful hacking and unauthorized computer access, but as a
`
`sword to stifle competition and assert propriety control over data in which it has no exclusive
`
`interest. In other words, LinkedIn recognizes it has no valid propriety or copyright interest, so it
`
`claims only that it has a propriety interest to control access to its website, treating that digital
`
`realm as though it were physical real property. Not only is the analogy inapposite, but LinkedIn
`
`ignores that the public profile data of members would not reside on its website in the first place
`
`but for its express promise that the date would be public for all to see and use. Thus, while
`
`LinkedIn can certainly prevent abusive access to its website, it should not be allowed to pervert
`
`the purpose of the laws at issue by using them to destroy putative competitors, engage in unlawful
`
`and unfair business practices and suppress the free speech rights of California citizens and
`
`businesses as alleged more fully herein.
`
`29.
`
`On May 30, 2017 counsel for hiQ sent a letter, attached as Exhibit 5, to LinkedIn
`
`asking that hiQ be permitted to access the public profiles portion of the LinkedIn website, at least
`
`in the interim while the parties discussed the possibility of a mutually amicable resolution. As of
`
`this date, LinkedIn has not responded.
`
`Recently Uncovered Evidence Suggests That LinkedIn Is Developing Its Own Analytics
`
`Offerings Based On Public Profile Data.
`
`30.
`
`In hiQ’s investigation in connection with these proceedings, it discovered that
`
`LinkedIn has started building its own offerings based on public member profiles. In a February
`
`2015 earnings call, several years after hiQ’s launch, LinkedIn’s CEO announced, “This year, we
`
`plan to enter a new category with products allowing companies to utilize LinkedIn in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`9
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 10 of 23
`
`enterprise by leveraging content and data that members are already sharing publicly.” When
`
`discussing this “new category” of products, LinkedIn’s CEO explained:
`
`[T]here’s an opportunity for LinkedIn to create value within an
`enterprise, within an organization leveraging information that’s
`already public. So by way of example, our public profile
`information, which particularly at larger organizations, you see some
`of those companies turning to LinkedIn to look up someone with
`their own company, because of how robust that public profile
`information can prove to be.
`So there’s examples of content or information that’s already
`publicly available, and we’re trying to think about ways in which we
`can better leverage that to create value within an organization.
`
`A page on the LinkedIn website states that it is also investing in its own data science projects. See
`
`<<https://engineering.linkedin.com/data>> (accessed 6/7/17).
`
`31.
`
`LinkedIn is aware that its denial of access by hiQ to these public profiles will
`
`jeopardize hiQ’s existing contracts and prospective economic advantage and threaten hiQ’s very
`
`survival. hiQ has explicitly made LinkedIn aware of existing contracts with eBay, Capital One,
`
`and GoDaddy, and prospective relationships with Bank of New York Mellon, Chevron, Groupon,
`
`Honeywell, IBM, Visier, and Jobvite. Exhibit 5 (Response to Cease-and-Desist Letter) at 3. hiQ
`
`has also informed LinkedIn of current financing negotiations that are imperiled by its threats. Id.
`
`LinkedIn has nevertheless refused to revoke its unlawful cease and desist demands and has never
`
`identified any actual harm to itself or anyone else from hiQ’s continued access to purely public
`
`profiles, access that is freely available to this day to anyone else in the world with an internet
`
`connection.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Declaratory Judgment that hiQ Has Not Violated And Will Not Violate the Computer Fraud
`
`and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030, By Accessing LinkedIn Public Profiles
`
`32.
`
`hiQ hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, courts may “declare the rights and other legal
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`10
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 11 of 23
`
`relations” of parties “to a case of actual controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
`
`34.
`
`An actual controversy exists between hiQ and LinkedIn. LinkedIn, through its
`
`cease-and desist-letter and threats of litigation, is attempting to use the law for an improper,
`
`anticompetitive purpose and to give itself a competitive advantage. LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist
`
`letter alleges that hiQ’s continued access of LinkedIn’s website would violate the Computer
`
`Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. LinkedIn has also threatened hiQ with
`
`litigation if it does not stop accessing LinkedIn’s website, and complying with LinkedIn’s
`
`demands would essentially destroy hiQ’s business. Indeed, LinkedIn has already threatened hiQ’s
`
`business by implementing technical measures to prevent hiQ from accessing, and assisting others
`
`to access, LinkedIn’s site. hiQ thus has a real and reasonable apprehension that it will be subject
`
`to liability if it continues to access LinkedIn’s website. Moreover, this apprehension was caused
`
`by LinkedIn’s actions—namely, LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist letter and its implementation of
`
`technology to block hiQ from accessing its site.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has not and will not be in violation of the CFAA
`
`by continuing to access and copy data from the public member profile sections of LinkedIn and
`
`that LinkedIn cannot use the provisions of the CFAA for an improper purpose in a way that leads
`
`to independent violations of California law and infringes on Plaintiff’s rights.
`
`36.
`
`hiQ prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Declaratory Judgment that hiQ Has Not Violated And Will Not Violate the Digital
`
`Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201, By Accessing LinkedIn Public Profiles
`
`37.
`
`hiQ hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`An actual controversy exists between hiQ and LinkedIn. LinkedIn, through its
`
`cease-and desist-letter and threats of litigation, is attempting to use the law for an improper,
`
`anticompetitive purpose and to give itself a competitive advantage. LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist
`
`letter alleges that hiQ’s continued access of LinkedIn’s website would violate the Digital
`
`Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 512, 1201) (“DMCA”). LinkedIn has also threatened
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`11
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 12 of 23
`
`hiQ with litigation if it does not stop accessing LinkedIn’s website, and complying with
`
`LinkedIn’s demands would essentially destroy hiQ’s business. Indeed, LinkedIn has already
`
`threatened hiQ’s business by implementing technical measures to prevent hiQ from accessing, and
`
`assisting others to access, LinkedIn’s site. hiQ thus has a real and reasonable apprehension that it
`
`will be subject to liability if it continues to access LinkedIn’s website. Moreover, this
`
`apprehension was caused by LinkedIn’s actions—namely, LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist letter and
`
`its implementation of technology to block hiQ from accessing its site.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has not and will not be in violation of the Digital
`
`Millennium Copyright Act by continuing to access and copy data from the public member profile
`
`sections of LinkedIn and that LinkedIn cannot use the provisions of the DMCA for an improper
`
`purpose in a way that leads to independent violations of California law and infringes on Plaintiff’s
`
`rights.
`
`40.
`
`hiQ prays for relief as set forth below.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`Declaratory Judgment that hiQ Has Not Committed and Will Not Commit Common Law
`
`Trespass To Chattels By Accessing LinkedIn Public Profiles
`
`41.
`
`hiQ hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`An actual controversy exists between hiQ and LinkedIn. LinkedIn, through its
`
`cease-and desist-letter and threats of litigation, is attempting to use the law for an improper,
`
`anticompetitive purpose and to give itself a competitive advantage. LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist
`
`letter alleges that hiQ’s continued access of LinkedIn’s website would constitute a trespass to
`
`chattels under California common law. LinkedIn has also threatened hiQ with litigation if it does
`
`not stop accessing LinkedIn’s website, and complying with LinkedIn’s demands would essentially
`
`destroy hiQ’s business. Indeed, LinkedIn has already threatened hiQ’s business by implementing
`
`technical measures to prevent hiQ from accessing, and assisting others to access, LinkedIn’s site.
`
`hiQ thus has a real and reasonable apprehension that it will be subject to liability if it continues to
`
`access LinkedIn’s website. Moreover, this apprehension was caused by LinkedIn’s actions—
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`12
`
`34556\6002784.1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-03301-EMC Document 1 Filed 06/07/17 Page 13 of 23
`
`namely, LinkedIn’s cease-and-desist letter and its implementation of technology to block hiQ from
`
`accessing its site.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has not committed and will not commit trespass
`
`to chattels by continuing to access and copy data from the public member profile sections of
`
`LinkedI