KMT's David Klein And Neil Asnen Discuss LinkedIn Class Action Suit With E-Commerce Law Reports

Social media giant LinkedIn Corporation ('LinkedIn') recently agreed to settle class action allegations that it violated several federal and state laws by harvesting email addresses from the external contact lists of LinkedIn members, and by sending repeated invitations to join LinkedIn to those addresses. Under the terms of the settlement, LinkedIn will contribute at least $13 million towards consumer relief, and implement changes to its policies and procedures, including more effectively informing users as to how its 'Add Connections' feature functions, as well as more easily allowing users to opt-out of it.

The 'Add Connections' feature is a LinkedIn process through which new and existing members can import contact information from external email accounts and/or invite one or more of those contacts to connect on LinkedIn by sending connection invitations via email, including up to two reminder emails. Notably, these emails had displayed the members' names, photographs, likenesses and/or identities, seemingly endorsing LinkedIn services.

The Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of LinkedIn members, alleged violations of: (1) California's common law right of publicity; (2) California's statutory right of publicity ('§ 3344'); (3) California's Unfair Competition Law ('UCL'), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; (4) theWiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; (5) California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502 ('§ 502'); and (6) the Stored Communications Act ('SCA'), 18 U.S.C. § 2701. Through two separate motions to dismiss, LinkedIn obtained dismissals of the § 502, § 3334, SCA and Wiretap Act claims, as well as portions of the UCL claims, though the remainder of the allegations survived before ultimately being settled.

Claims related to LinkedIn's email harvesting

Plaintiffs alleged that LinkedIn's practice of harvesting the email addresses of its users' contacts violated the SCA and Wiretap Act. Broadly speaking, the SCA creates a private right of action for intentionally accessing a facility through which an electronic communication is provided without proper authorisation. The Wiretap Act generally prohibits the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications. However, consent and authorisation will preclude liability under these respective statutes.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that due to the relevant disclosures, LinkedIn users would reasonably have...