Recommended Free Tools
LinkedIn’s 2016 federal lawsuit named “Does 1–100”—100 anonymous defendants—and alleged that they used bots to copy data from LinkedIn pages while evading technical barriers and violating the site’s User Agreement. The complaint did not identify 100 publicly named people. The available sources do not establish who the defendants were or how the case ultimately ended.
Why did LinkedIn sue 100 people for scraping data?
LinkedIn filed the complaint in federal court in California in August 2016. It alleged that unknown people or entities used automated software, described as bots, to extract and copy information from LinkedIn pages. LinkedIn further alleged that the defendants circumvented technical measures intended to stop large-scale automated scraping and knowingly violated access and use restrictions in its User Agreement. These are allegations in the complaint, not findings established by a court in the sources available here. TechCrunch’s contemporaneous report covered the filing; the court docket and complaint provide the case record.
Who were the 100 people LinkedIn sued?
The complaint identified the defendants as “Does 1–100,” a conventional way to list defendants whose identities are unknown to the plaintiff when a case is filed. The number refers to anonymous defendants in the pleading, not 100 people whose names were publicly disclosed. Contemporary reporting also described them as unnamed individuals. The sources reviewed do not establish their identities.
Is scraping LinkedIn profiles allowed?
This lawsuit alone does not settle that question for every kind of scraping or every circumstance. LinkedIn’s complaint alleged a particular combination of automated data extraction, evasion of technical barriers, and violation of its User Agreement. A later LinkedIn statement described the company’s rationale for legal action in other scraping litigation as enforcing its User Agreement and protecting member data; it is a statement of the company’s position, not a ruling on the 2016 case. LinkedIn’s 2022 statement addresses that later position.
#1 Best Overall
Whether a particular activity is permitted or legally defensible can depend on the facts, applicable terms, and law. The complaint and reporting cited here are not enough to provide categorical legal advice.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the lawsuit’s outcome?
The sources reviewed do not establish the defendants’ identities, an ultimate disposition of the case, or a final judicial determination of LinkedIn’s allegations. The filing should therefore be described as LinkedIn’s claims in a 2016 complaint—not as proof that the alleged conduct occurred or that a court ruled against the defendants.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
