LinkedIn beat two lawsuits over its practice of scanning users’ browser extensions, with a judge granting the Microsoft subsidiary’s motion to dismiss the cases. The users who sued LinkedIn failed to adequately allege that they have standing to sue because neither asserted that they “had browser extensions installed that conveyed private information to LinkedIn,” ruled Judge Vince Chhabria in US District Court for the Northern District of California. In his ruling on Tuesday, Chhabria gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints but said he doubts they can make a plausible case.
California residents Nicholas Farrell and Jeff Ganan separately filed class actions against LinkedIn in April, seeking to represent themselves and other LinkedIn users. Howell, said he is evaluating whether to bring the claims in a California state court, which has different requirements on standing, or to appeal the US district court ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling is not a vindication of the mass surveillance program alleged in our complaint.” As we wrote in April, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuits after a report alleged that “LinkedIn Is illegally searching your computer.” LinkedIn did not deny that it scans browsers to identify extensions and already disclosed in its privacy policy that it uses cookies and similar technologies to collect information about each user’s “web browser and add-ons.” The so-called “BrowserGate” report was issued by a German entity called Fairlinked, which describes itself as a trade association and advocacy group for commercial LinkedIn users.
It appeared to be run by the same people behind Teamfluence, an Estonian software company that sued LinkedIn in Munich after its CEO was banned by LinkedIn.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
