We reached out to Teamfluence today and will update this article if it replies.
“Unfortunately, this involves an individual who lost in a court of law and is now attempting to re-litigate the matter in the court of public opinion without regard for accuracy,” LinkedIn said.
Attorney: LinkedIn “does not meaningfully deny” allegation
It’s common for class-action complaints to follow high-profile claims from media outlets or advocacy groups. The Farrell suit against LinkedIn heavily cites the BrowserGate report and labels Fairlinked as a “European advocacy group” while omitting its connections to Teamfluence. We contacted the attorneys behind the filing and will update this article if they respond.
The Ganan complaint doesn’t rely on the BrowserGate report but levels comparable accusations. J.R. Howell, the Santa Monica lawyer who brought the case, told Ars today that the suit’s claims “were based on the firm’s own review and analysis of LinkedIn’s client-side code and related technical behavior, as well as the applicable US and California legal framework.”
Howell said LinkedIn’s reply does not rebut the central claim about lack of consent.
“LinkedIn’s public response does not meaningfully deny the core conduct alleged in the complaint,” Howell told Ars. “The key question isn’t whether LinkedIn says it was addressing terms-of-service abuse. The question is whether users were ever clearly and meaningfully informed that LinkedIn would covertly inspect their browsers for installed extensions, pull session-linked data, and share that data with undisclosed third parties whose uses might go beyond a single compliance check.”
Howell contends that a “reasonable user does not consent to mass browser surveillance and third-party data exploitation through vague references to security, cookies, add-ons, or abuse prevention.”
Both complaints assert that LinkedIn breached the California Constitution’s privacy protections and violated the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The Ganan suit additionally alleges violations of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Both cases seek monetary damages and an injunction requiring the company to alter its data-collection and disclosure practices.
