Source: https://ogalaws.wordpress.com/tag/hiq-v-linkedin/
Timestamp: 2019-02-16 09:56:31
Document Index: 486549083

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2201', '§ 1030', '§ 2201', '§ 1030', '§1201', '§ 502', '§ 17200', '§ 2201', '§ 1030', '§1201', '§ 502', '§ 17200', 'art1', '§17200', '§ 2201', '§ 1030', '§1201', '§ 502', '§ 17200']

hiQ v. LinkedIn | Ogalaws
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn: When is Public Speech (or a Public Whisper), Private?
An example of “public speech”, in this context, would be an open and notorious change to one’s LinkedIn profile, such as adding a project, an interest, or a competency and skill; and then positively choosing to publicize these profile changes to one’s network.
An example of a “public whisper”, in this context, would be changing one’s skills or communication preferences to show openness to career opportunities, thereby letting recruiters know that one might be interested in opportunities; willingly sharing one’s LinkedIn profile with potential recruiters; or making a public speech as above, but then “specifically” choosing to not announce this profile change to one’s network or to members of the general public.
LinkedIn (“LinkedIn”) is a very widely-used networking site that allows users to choose between making such public speech and public whispers, in their settings preferences.
hiQ –
hiQ Labs, Inc. (“hiQ”), is a data analytics entity that has developed and deployed automated “bots” that can access public speech and that last definitional element of a public whisper[1] (hushed or stealthy profile changes) on LinkedIn in a Skill Mapper, allegedly not always in accordance with LinkedIn user-selected visibility preferences,[2] and then further share, publicize or sell the results whether in the raw or aggregated formats to its own customer base of interested employers and parties and persons attempting to contact such job-seeking, job-interested, and passively job interested LinkedIn users.
“Companies like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook view scraping of the data generated by their users not just as theft – they sometimes charge to license data (to higher level business users) – but a violation of their users’ privacy, because some information can be limited so not all users can view it”[3] [additional words in parentheses].
Understandably, LinkedIn, “which charges recruiters, salespeople and job hunters for higher levels of access to profile data”,[4] issued a 3-page cease-and-desist letter to hiQ on May 23, 2017,[5] advising the recipient that it was in violation of the LinkedIn user agreement with those behaviours, notifying the recipient that additional security precautions had been implemented to prevent any recurrence, demanding that the recipient delete and destroy all such “improperly obtained material” in its possession or custody or control, and putting the recipient on notice that any further such behaviour would be in violation of applicable state and federal laws, with citation to a leading 2015 case in that jurisdiction of the United States federal District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), in which the court had barred similar “website data scraping” conduct.[6]
hiQ promptly filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in California federal court (USDC, NDCA),[7] to bar any actual application of that cease-and-desist language pending ultimate determination of the underlying matters in a court of competent jurisdiction. And so it was, that on Monday, August 14, 2017, the court granted hiQ its TRO.[8]
CRAIGSLIST –
In the case that LinkedIn cited within its cease-and-desist letter to hiQ, Craigslist, Inc., had filed a Complaint against the defendant, but the defendant had not timely answered. As a result, Craigslist then applied for and was granted, a Default Judgement.[9] According to the ruling, a certain Brian Niessen, a Craigslist user, had answered a Craigslist advertisement posted by another Craigslist user, for a “Skilled Hacker at Scraping Web Content”.[10] Niessen had described himself as a hacker, and professed that he was already scraping several thousand websites, including “[c]raigslist, Twitter, Groupon, Zagat, and others.”[11] 3taps then entered into a business relationship with Niessen to continue his scraping, for them, which Craigslist stated was in violation of its terms of use (TOU) and constituted a breach of contract because Niessen, as a registered Craigslist user, had agreed to the TOU on several occasions.[12]
“The TOU prohibit, among other things, “[a]ny copying, aggregation, display, distribution, performance or derivative use of craigslist or any content posted on craigslist whether done directly or through intermediaries, […]””[13]
Craigslist did secure injunctions against the Niessen co-defendants, including Lovely, PadMapper, and 3taps.[14] However, Niessen – named along with those co-defendants in the Amended Complaint with its 17 Claims for Relief,[15] was somewhat more elusive; as he was first difficult to effectively serve with the Complaint, and then after being served, he failed to provide an answer within the specified time.[16] As a result, the Clerk of Court first entered a Notice of Default against Niessen, and then Craigslist made Motion for a Default Judgement against Niessen, which the court granted.[17]
LinkedIn had sought a response by May 31, 2017 to its cease-and-desist letter of May 23, 2017.[18] However, hiQ filed its Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief against LinkedIn on June 7, 2017.[19] In summary, with the first paragraph of the Introduction for same, hiQ writes:
“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.”[20]
hiQ did promptly and appropriately seek and retain counsel to engage in discussions with LinkedIn upon receipt of the cease-and-desist letter, in order to better understand LinkedIn’s position and seek an accommodative solution to their serious differences.[21] LinkedIn argued through counsel that it was protecting the interests of its users and seeking to remedy violations of state and federal laws; and hiQ argued through counsel that not only did LinkedIn lack any proprietary interests in the posted data, which was still owned by its users, but that LinkedIn was therefore attempting 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.”[22]
On May 30, 2017, hiQ then sent its own letter to LinkedIn seeking the ongoing interim website access that would allow it to persist as a going concern – because “complying with LinkedIn’s demands would essentially destroy hiQ’s business”,[23] while continuing discussions towards “a mutually amicable resolution” of their impasse. However, on receiving no response, hiQ filed its Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.[24]
The parties entered into a standstill agreement that preserved hiQ’s access to the public LinkedIn data, and agreed to convert hiQ’s original motion into one for a preliminary injunction, after the court had heard the initial party arguments on the hiQ complaint on July 27, 2017.[25] In California federal District Court, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”[26] Within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which lays-down controlling precedent for United States Federal District Courts in California and several other states and territories,[27] there is a sliding scale for the standard of proof on these elements; which means “a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.”[28]
The court also grappled, inter alia, with the language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030,[29] which prohibits and sanctions unauthorized (whether lacking authorization ab initio or with authorization later revoked), or improperly elevated or improperly applied access to a computer or computer system, because although the LinkedIn profiles were public, they rested on one or more private servers, which were computers.[30] However, as the court finally opined, “[…] hiQ has, at the very least, raised serious questions as to applicability of the CFAA to its conduct.”[31]
“The CFAA must be interpreted in its historical context, mindful of Congress’ purpose. The CFAA was not intended to police traffic to publicly available websites on the Internet – the Internet did not exist in 1984. The CFAA was intended instead to deal with “hacking” or “trespass” onto private, often password-protected mainframe computers.”[32]
With regard to hiQ‘s claims that the LinkedIn conduct had violated applicable California free speech laws, the court was more circumspect. hiQ had cited to Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr.,[33] a case involving attempts to curtail political speech in a privately-owned shopping mall, to analogize that the LinkedIn site was a public forum akin to a shopping mall with guaranteed free access, free speech, and free association, because “[…] the state’s guarantee of free expression may take precedence over the rights of private property owners to exclude people from their property.”[34]
The court was very loathe to start traveling down this most slippery of slopes, stating that: no court had, as yet, extended Pruneyard to the internet in so complete a manner; unlike a shopping mall, the Internet had no single controlling authority; there may result significant repercussions on the capacity of social media hosts to curate posted materials in such a public forum; and there was a lingering question as to whether the same rules would apply to the websites of small, medium, and large entities, alike.[35] The court therefore concluded, that “[i]n light of the potentially sweeping implications discussed above and the lack of any more direct authority, the Court cannot conclude that hiQ has at this juncture raised “serious questions” that LinkedIn’s conduct violates its constitutional rights under the California Constitution.”[36]
On the balance, the court agreed that hiQ had raised enough of a question as to whether LinkedIn’s actions against it had violated the provisions of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL)[37] by “leveraging its power in the professional networking market for an anticompetitive purpose”;[38] disagreed that hiQ had either claimed to be a third-party beneficiary of LinkedIn’s promise to its users that they could control the publicity of their profiles, or shown that a third-party could assert such a claim of promissory estoppel in the first instance;[39] and agreed that the public interest favoured a granting of hiQ’s injunction, because “[i]t is likely that those who opt for the public view setting expect their public profile will be subject to searches, date (sic) mining, aggregation, and analysis.”[40]
Of note, regarding all of its claims and especially the estoppel claim, hiQ had also argued that LinkedIn had long acquiesced to its usage of the website and publicly available user data in this way; including attending hiQ conferences where the host thoroughly explained its methodology and business model, and even gave at least one LinkedIn employee an award.[41] Indeed, some industry commentators have opined that LinkedIn has merely had a change in policy subsequent to its acquisition by Facebook which the courts should not enjoin, and they foresee several other negative repercussions from the outcome of this case if hiQ prevails, and they expect LinkedIn to appeal the District Court ruling.[42] However, there are also several strong voices supporting hiQ that see negative repercussions if LinkedIn prevails.[43]
Suffice it so say that for now, LinkedIn has been Ordered to withdraw its cease and desist letters to hiQ, and stop blocking hiQ, both with immediate effect from the August 14, 2017 date of the Order of Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge.[44]
We await LinkedIn’s appeal,[45] if any, but in the interim …… all who so do, are advised to publicly shout, and to publicly whisper, with caution, because they never know who might be cataloguing their words – and where those words that they own might land; (or more specifically, land the originator of those very words) in this Gig e-conomy[46] that exemplifies the gentle admonition that “sharing is daring!”
Ekundayo George is a lawyer and sociologist. He is a keen student of organizational and micro-organizational behavior and has gained significant experience in regulatory compliance, litigation, and business law and counseling. He has been licensed to practise law in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, as well as in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., in the United States of America. See, for example: http://www.ogalaws.com. A writer, blogger, and avid reader, Mr. George has sector experience in Technology (Telecommunications, eCommerce, Outsourcing, Cloud), Financial Services and Public Finance, Public Procurement, Healthcare and Public Pensions, Entertainment, Real Estate and Zoning, International/cross-border trade, other services, and Environmental Law and Policy; working with equal ease and effectiveness in his transitions to and from the public and private sectors.
Of note, Mr. George has now worked at the municipal government, provincial government, and federal government levels in Canada, as well as at the municipal government, state government, and federal government levels in the United States. He is also a published author on the National Security aspects of Environmental Law, has represented clients in courts and before regulatory bodies in both Canada and the United States, and enjoys complex systems analysis in legal, technological, and societal milieux.
Trained in Legal Project Management (and having organized and managed several complex projects before practising law), Mr. George is also an experienced negotiator, facilitator, team leader, and strategic consultant – sourcing, managing, and delivering on complex engagements with multiple stakeholders and multidisciplinary teams. Team consulting competencies include program investigation, sub-contracted procurement of personnel and materials, and such diverse project deliverables as business process re-engineering, devising and delivering tailored training, and other targeted engagements through tapping a highly-credentialed resource pool of contract professionals with several hundred years of combined expertise, in: healthcare; education and training; law and regulation; policy and plans; statistics, economics, and evaluations including feasibility studies and business cases; infrastructure; and information technology/information systems (IT/IS) – also sometimes termed information communications technologies (ICT). See, for example: http://www.simprime-ca.com.
[1] See Infra note 7 at Introduction, ¶2. hiQ does specifically state in its Complaint, that: “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.” But See HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 6. Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>…
“LinkedIn maintains that […] while the information that hiQ seeks to collect is publicly viewable, the posting of changes to a profile may raise the risk that a current employee may be rated as having a higher risk of flight under Keeper even though the employee chose the Do Not Broadcast setting. hiQ could also make data from users available even after those users have removed it from their profiles or deleted their profiles altogether. LinkedIn argues that both it and its users therefore face substantial harm absent an injunction; if hiQ is able to continue its data collection unabated, LinkedIn members’ privacy may be compromised, and the company will suffer a corresponding loss of consumer trust and confidence” [emphasis added].
[2] Id. at Introduction, ¶5. On this point, hiQ writes to specify LinkedIn’s 5 levels of profile visibility preference, and emphasize its own limited access to and use of same:
“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.”
[3] Thomas Lee. LinkedIn, HiQ Spat Presents Big Questions for Freedom, Innovation. Published July 8, 2017 on sfchronicle.com. Web: <http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/LinkedIn-HiQ-spat-presents-big-questions-for-11274133.php#comments>
[5] LinkedIn Corporation. RE: Demand to Immediately Cease and Desist Unauthorized Data Scraping and other Violations of LinkedIn’s User Agreement. Letter dated May 23, 2017. Web: <https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20170620/hiqvlinkedin–ceaseanddesist.pdf>
[6] Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 12-cv-03816-CRB (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2015). ORDER Granting Application for Default Judgment, issued by Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA). Web: <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2012cv03816/257395/280/>
[7] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-LB (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017). 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. Filed 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA). Web: <https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/312704/1-0.html>
[8] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA). Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>
[9] Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 12-cv-03816-CRB (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2015). ORDER Granting Application for Default Judgment, issued by Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA). Web: <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2012cv03816/257395/280/>
[14] Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 12-cv-03816-CRB (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2015). ORDER Granting Application for Default Judgment, issued by Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 3. Web: <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2012cv03816/257395/280/>
[15] Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 12-cv-03816-CRB (N.D. Cal. November 20, 2012). First Amended Complaint.
Web: <http://www.3taps.com/images/pics/430_Amended Compalint .pdf>
[16] Supra note 14 at 3.
[18] LinkedIn Corporation. RE: Demand to Immediately Cease and Desist Unauthorized Data Scraping and other Violations of LinkedIn’s User Agreement. Letter dated May 23, 2017. Web: <https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/editorial/20170620/hiqvlinkedin–ceaseanddesist.pdf>
[19] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-LB (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017). 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. Filed 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA). Web: <https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/312704/1-0.html>
[20] Id. at Introduction, ¶1.
[21] Id. at ¶¶27-8.
[22] Id. at ¶28.
[23] Id. at ¶¶34, 38, 46.
[24] Id. at ¶29.
[25] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 3. Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>…
[27] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington state. See generally Geographical Boundaries of United States Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts. Online: <https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Circuit Map.pdf>
[28] Supra note 25 at 4.
[29] Congress of the United States, United States Code. 18 USC 1030: Fraud and related activity in connection with computers. Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Part I: Crimes; Chapter 47: Fraud and False Statements. Web: <uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter47&edition=prelim>
[30] Supra note 25 at 10.
[31] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 16. Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>
[32] Id. at 10.
[33] See Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr., 23 Cal. 3d 899, 905 (1979).
[34] Supra note 31 at 18
[36] Id. at 20-21.
[37] See Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.
[38] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 21. Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>
[40] Id. at 24.
[41] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-LB (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017). 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. Filed 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at ¶7. Web: <https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/cand/312704/1-0.html>
[42] See generally Tristan Greene. The future of your data could rest in the outcome of LinkedIn vs HiQ case. Posted August 24, 2017 on thenextweb.com. Web: <https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/08/24/hiq-is-the-david-to-linkedins-goliath-in-legal-battle-over-user-data/#.tnw_Q1Tn05Hv>…
[44] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2017). Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, issued by Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (USDC, NDCA), at 21. Web: <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3932131/2017-0814-Hiq-Order.pdf>
[45] – Reserved –
[46] For a general overview of the Gig e-conomy and its monopoly potential, see e.g. Ekundayo George. Monopolies and Market Dominance in the “GIG” e-conomy: What Might These Look Like / Are We There Yet? Published July 16, 2017 on ogalaws.wordpress.com. Web: <https://ogalaws.wordpress.com/2017/07/16/monopolies-and-market-dominance-in-the-gig-e-conomy-what-might-this-look-like-are-we-there-yet/>
Filed in Business of Business, Data Governance, e-Commerce, Individual Liberties
Tagged: Big Data Aggregation, data governance, hiQ profile scraping case, hiQ v. LinkedIn, LinkedIn profile scraping case, Privacy of Public Personal Data, Public Whisper v. Public Shout, Web Scraping