\n
<\/p>\n
We contacted Teamfluence today and will update this article if it provides a response.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnfortunately, this is a case of an individual who lost in the court of law, but is seeking to re-litigate in the court of public opinion without regard for accuracy,\u201d LinkedIn said.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not uncommon for lawyers to file class action lawsuits shortly after explosive claims are made by media outlets or advocacy groups. The Farrell lawsuit against LinkedIn extensively quotes the BrowserGate report and describes Fairlinked as a \u201cEuropean advocacy group\u201d without mentioning its ties to Teamfluence. We contacted the lawyers who filed the lawsuit and will update this article if we get a response.<\/p>\n
The Ganan lawsuit doesn\u2019t mention the BrowserGate report but makes similar allegations. J.R. Howell, the Santa Monica attorney who filed the complaint, told Ars today that the suit\u2019s allegations \u201cwere based on the firm\u2019s own review and analysis of LinkedIn\u2019s client-side code and related technical behavior, as well as the applicable US and California legal framework.\u201d<\/p>\n
Howell told Ars that LinkedIn\u2019s response to the claims does not refute the central allegation regarding lack of consent.<\/p>\n
\u201cLinkedIn\u2019s public response does not meaningfully deny the core conduct alleged in the complaint,\u201d Howell told Ars. \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Howell argues that a \u201creasonable user does not consent to mass browser surveillance and third-party data exploitation through vague references to security, cookies, add-ons, or abuse prevention.\u201d<\/p>\n
Both lawsuits allege that LinkedIn violated the California Constitution\u2019s protection against invasion of privacy and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Ganan lawsuit also alleges that LinkedIn violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Both lawsuits seek financial damages and an injunction forcing the company to change its data-collection and disclosure practices.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n