From reading the opinion, I think the argument goes something like this:
> First, LinkedIn does not contest hiQ’s evidence that contracts exist between hiQ and some customers, including eBay, Capital One, and GoDaddy
> Second, hiQ will likely be able to establish that LinkedIn knew of hiQ’s scraping activity and products for some time. LinkedIn began sending representatives to hiQ’s Elevate conferences in October 2015
> Third, LinkedIn’s threats to invoke the CFAA and implementation of technical measures selectively to ban hiQ bots could well constitute “intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption” of hiQ’s contractual relationships with third parties.
> Fourth, the contractual relationships between hiQ and third parties have been disrupted and “now hang[] in the balance.” Without access to LinkedIn data, hiQ will likely be unable to deliver its services to its existing customers as promised.
> Last, hiQ is harmed by the disruption to its existing contracts and interference with its pending contracts. Without the revenue from sale of its products, hiQ will likely go out of business.
> LinkedIn does not specifically challenge hiQ’s ability to make out any of these elements of a tortious interference claim. Instead, LinkedIn maintains that it has a “legitimate business purpose” defense to any such claim. ... That contention is an affirmative justification defense for which LinkedIn bears the burden of proof.
So the real situation is that you can't go out and start blocking access you knew about in a way that would interfer with third party contracts without a legitimate business reason to do so. The burden of proving the legitimacy of that business reason is on you.
edit:
TLDR;
> "A party may not ... under the guise of competition ... induce the breach of a competitor’s contract in order to secure an economic advantage."
Be restaurant. Be on Deliveroo. Be getting low margins because of high fees.
So basically you can’t decide not to use Deliveroo any more, to improve margina (“secure an exonomic advantage”). I mean, you can cancel Deliveroo, but only as long as you’re not “inducing a breach of their contract”. So only a matter of time before Deliveroo writes a contract “we’re obligated to deliver food for you from said restaurant”.
Choosing not to use a middleman any more so that you can secure higher margins sounds like about clearest example of a "legitimate business reason" imaginable. The purpose of the act is to immediately increase your margins, not to hurt Deliveroo because you don't want their competition.
That's very different from the case in question, where LinkedIn's motive for cutting off hiQ's access is to inflict damage on hiQ because they are a potential competitor.
I would imagine that if you contract with Deliveroo, they have some terms that say that you need to give notice when cancelling?
I don't know Deliveroo, but I think a better analogy would be if you suddenly, even though it is not causing you trouble, denied access to someone picking up food that you didn't contract with, with the full knowledge that the someone would be in big trouble with their customers.
IANAL, but I think you're misunderstanding "without a legitimate business reason to do so"
"Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo because they can't continue operating with the loss of revenue due to high fees is a legitimate business reason. "Be Restaurant" blocking Deliveroo 2: Electric Boogaloo because I don't like their owner, but continuing to allow Deliveroo access would be, presumably, disallowed.
Also there's nothing stopping "Be Restaurant" from offering an exclusive delivery contract to Deliveroo and forcing Deliveroo 2 out, or requiring a minimum fee for all delivery services, Deliveroo and Deliveroo 2 included.
Of course, I think this is all in a very different area from a restaurant; we're talking about a service provided on the internet. I believe LinkedIn has many, many other recourses here, but, as I see it, the courts are just telling them, this aint it chief.
> What I mean is that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of censoring.
This is at least not quite true of First Amendment law. The concept of "compelled speech" exists in US law, and is considered an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Exactly what falls into that category (and whether the right of domain owners to censor user-provided content as they see fit is protected), I'm not sure, but freedom of speech in the US certainly does at least sometimes include the right not to speak.
Yes, the court was right to block LinkedIn's abuse of the CFAA. But the court was wrong that say that LinkedIn must show HIQ the same website as LinkedIn shows everyone else.
> First, LinkedIn does not contest hiQ’s evidence that contracts exist between hiQ and some customers, including eBay, Capital One, and GoDaddy
> Second, hiQ will likely be able to establish that LinkedIn knew of hiQ’s scraping activity and products for some time. LinkedIn began sending representatives to hiQ’s Elevate conferences in October 2015
> Third, LinkedIn’s threats to invoke the CFAA and implementation of technical measures selectively to ban hiQ bots could well constitute “intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption” of hiQ’s contractual relationships with third parties.
> Fourth, the contractual relationships between hiQ and third parties have been disrupted and “now hang[] in the balance.” Without access to LinkedIn data, hiQ will likely be unable to deliver its services to its existing customers as promised.
> Last, hiQ is harmed by the disruption to its existing contracts and interference with its pending contracts. Without the revenue from sale of its products, hiQ will likely go out of business.
> LinkedIn does not specifically challenge hiQ’s ability to make out any of these elements of a tortious interference claim. Instead, LinkedIn maintains that it has a “legitimate business purpose” defense to any such claim. ... That contention is an affirmative justification defense for which LinkedIn bears the burden of proof.
So the real situation is that you can't go out and start blocking access you knew about in a way that would interfer with third party contracts without a legitimate business reason to do so. The burden of proving the legitimacy of that business reason is on you.
edit: TLDR;
> "A party may not ... under the guise of competition ... induce the breach of a competitor’s contract in order to secure an economic advantage."