Legal Insights on Web Scraping: Key Court Rulings and Considerations
Disclaimer: Food Data Scrape does NOT provide legal advice. We strongly recommend consulting with a qualified attorney for any legal matters.
This page offers the most current information regarding the legal considerations of web scraping, including links to expert opinions and pertinent court decisions. If you notice any errors or outdated details, please let us know so we can make the necessary corrections.
Legal Aspects of Web Scraping
The legality of web scraping is highly jurisdiction-specific, with laws varying from one country or region to another. Generally, scraping publicly accessible data is not considered illegal. Major companies like Google, which aggregates vast amounts of public data, would face significant legal challenges if it were.
For comprehensive insights on the subject, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) provides extensive resources.
2024
Meta vs. Bright Data: Ruling by the US District Court, Northern District of California
January 23, 2024
COURT DENIES META'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In a pivotal decision on January 23, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of Bright Data Ltd. in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC. Judge Edward Chen's judgment could significantly influence the legal landscape surrounding web scraping and data collection practices.
Bright Data, a company specializing in providing scraping technologies and access to data sourced from publicly available platforms, including Meta's social media networks, successfully defended its practices. Judge Chen's ruling reflects an evolving legal perspective on interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), continuing the trajectory established in the landmark hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. case.
The hiQ Labs case, also overseen by Judge Chen, narrowed the scope of the CFAA in the context of scraping publicly accessible data. This latest decision reinforces those precedents, further clarifying the lawful boundaries of data scraping activities.
This ruling underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding access to publicly available online information and platforms' rights to control such data.
2022
LinkedIn vs. HiQ Labs: Decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
April 18, 2022
The ruling aligns with the Ninth Circuit's 2019 judgment, which upheld a 2017 lower court decision in HiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, stating that web scraping does not constitute unauthorized access to a protected computer under the law.
The dispute originated in California in 2017 when HiQ Labs, an employment analytics company, contested LinkedIn's legal and technical measures to prevent HiQ from collecting publicly available profile data from LinkedIn users. Additional information, including an overview of this prolonged and intricate case, can be found on The Register.
2021
Supreme Court of the United States – Van Buren v. United States Decision
June 3, 2021
While this case does not explicitly focus on web scraping, it involves the application of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986, which has implications for web scraping cases. A thorough analysis of the case can be found here .
This case presents a nuanced perspective on the CFAA and may not resolve all legal questions surrounding it. However, it appears to limit the CFAA's reach, potentially discouraging companies from using it as a tool to target web scraping activities.
2020
Eastern District Court of New York - Genius Media Group Inc. v. Google LLC and LyricFind Case
August 12, 2020
In a notable case, Google, one of the most prominent players in web scraping, had a lawsuit filed by Genius Media Group over the scraping of lyrics dismissed by Judge Margo Brodie. Genius claimed that Google scraped their lyrics to display them in search results. However, Judge Brodie ruled that the Copyright Act preempted the lawsuit, as it essentially sought to enforce copyright owners' exclusive rights over unauthorized reproduction. For more information, refer to the entire ruling of Genius Media Group Inc. vs Google LLC and Lyricfind (19-CV-7279 MKB), or read more insights on Techcrunch or Lawstreetmedia.
2018
District of Columbia U.S. Court – Sandvig v. Sessions Legal Proceedings
March 30, 2018
In Sandvig v. Sessions, a US District Court ruling directly addresses the issue of web scraping, asserting that scraping could fall under the protection of the First Amendment. The ruling emphasizes that the plaintiffs' use of scraping technology instead of manually gathering data does not alter the fundamental argument. It is seen as a modern technological tool to facilitate information collection. It is comparable to using a tape recorder instead of writing notes or employing a smartphone's panorama mode instead of taking multiple individual photographs.
Terms of Service Legality
Please review our website's full terms of use for a detailed explanation of how our Terms of Service pertain to web scraping.
2024
Meta Platforms Inc. vs. Bright Data Ltd.: Ruling from the United States District Court, Northern California
January 23, 2024
On 23rd January, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a summary judgment in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. (Case No. 3:23-cv-00077- EMC). Judge Edward Chen ruled favor of Bright Data, a provider of scraping infrastructure and data sourced from publicly accessible platforms, including Meta's social media sites. This ruling builds upon the prior precedent set in the landmark case, hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., which significantly impacted the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) about web scraping activities.
The full ruling can be accessed here .
2020
District of Columbia Federal Court – Sandvig v. Sessions Case Review
March 27, 2020
In the Sandvig v. Barr case (Civil Action No. 16-1368), the US District Court in Washington, DC, ruled that violating a website's terms of service does not constitute a criminal act under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Judge John D. Bates highlighted that treating each website's terms as a separate legal jurisdiction could lead to significant issues. He argued that allowing websites to dictate their laws could create a chaotic legal landscape.
2018
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Ruling in Oracle v. Rimini Street Case
January 8, 2018
According to recent insights from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) regarding a Ninth Circuit ruling:
The court clarified that "accessing data in a manner prohibited by a website's terms of use" — such as scraping — does not inherently violate state computer crime laws as long as the access itself is generally allowed.
EFF further explained that "neither law applies to situations where a user is authorized to access data but merely violates the website's terms by using it in a manner the owner disapproves of."
