Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you've mischaracterized the state of things. In the underlying case, LinkedIn asserted that HiQ violated the CFAA and HiQ said LinkedIn tortiously interfered with its business. The trial court said LinkedIn couldn't assert the CFAA. LinkedIn appealed, asking the appellate court to overturn the trial court and also to hold that the tortious interference claim is preempted by the CFAA. The appellate court said no, we agree with the trial court and there's no preemption, so now HiQ can go back to the trial court and proceed to trial with its tortious interference claim.


LinkedIn tried to use the CFAA as an argument against the preliminary injunction HiQ was seeking at the start of the trial (which would force LinkedIn to continue to provide access to the profiles). They claimed that HiQ was likely to fail under the CFAA and so do not deserve the injunction to be granted. When the preliminary injunction was granted, LinkedIn appealed. This is the ruling on that appeal:

> It is likely that when a computer network generally permits public access to its data, a user’s accessing that publicly available data will not constitute access without authorization under the CFAA. The data hiQ seeks to access is not owned by LinkedIn and has not been demarcated by LinkedIn as private using such an authorization system. HiQ has therefore raised serious questions about whether LinkedIn may invoke the CFAA to preempt hiQ’s possibly meritorious tortious interference claim.

So yes, HiQ and LinkedIn need to go back and finish the trial, but the language used is in no way ruling on whether or not the CFAA preempts state law, just that even if there is pre-emption that hiQ still has a decent argument.


Are you saying the trial court never ruled on the preemption claim?


The court rules that hiQ has a good enough argument against the preemption claim that the preemption claim cannot be used to block the injuction:

>> We therefore conclude that hiQ has raised a serious question as to whether the reference to access “without authorization” limits the scope of the statutory coverage to computer information for which authorization or access permission, such as password authentication, is generally required




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: