by namukang on 1/30/23, 6:11 PM with 146 comments
I'm the creator and solo developer behind Browserflow, a Chrome extension that lets you automate any website. (Show HN from around a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29254147). Basically, it's a general-purpose browser automation tool like Selenium/Puppeteer/Playwright that anyone can use without writing code.
The Browserflow website includes examples of automations people often request, including scraping popular websites like LinkedIn. A few days ago, I received a cease and desist letter from LinkedIn: https://browserflow.app/linkedin.pdf
As a one-man operation with modest resources, I'm hoping I can get some help from the HN community in understanding what this means to avoid getting sued into oblivion. :)
At first I thought that I'd be fine if I removed all references to LinkedIn from the Browserflow website, but I'm not so sure about that. One of LinkedIn's demands is to “Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data, or otherwise violating the LinkedIn User Agreement”.
Even if I removed all the LinkedIn examples, Browserflow could still be used to automate or scrape LinkedIn because, well, it's a browser automation tool. Is LinkedIn demanding that I stop developing Browserflow altogether?
The letter cites hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp as the legal precedent for why Browserflow is in violation, but there are some differences between hiQ and Browserflow that I thought might be meaningful:
1. Browserflow is not designed specifically for scraping LinkedIn: It's a tool for general-purpose browser automation, not a service that scrapes LinkedIn and resells the data.
2. Browserflow does not scrape LinkedIn on its own: Any automation of LinkedIn is initiated by the user using their own LinkedIn account.
2. Browserflow does not create or use fake LinkedIn accounts.
I'd be fine with removing all the LinkedIn examples from the website, but I'd like to continue building Browserflow because I love working on it and it's my livelihood. I'd appreciate any advice or help. Thanks!
by onion2k on 1/30/23, 6:38 PM
by riverlong on 1/30/23, 6:59 PM
1. Recognize that they have requested exactly four specific actions from you (bullet points, second page)
2. Do not follow the 4th bullet point, affirming in writing any future conduct only opens you up to liability. (By affirming, you'd create some agreement that they could later make hay about you breaching if they're not happy with your future conduct.)
3. Follow the 3rd bullet point rigorously. They do have a claim on Trademark infringement, and that will hold up well enough. Clean it up ASAP.
4. Take a legal position on where you stand vis-a-vis the LinkedIn User Agreement.
- BrowserFlow (or Road to Ramen LLC) is not a party to that agreement, so you can argue that you're not bound by it. The individual person who is using BrowserFlow is, since they have a LinkedIn account.
- If you want to play it safe, remove the LinkedIn examples from your website. (Bullet two.)
- I would not change the existing functionality of BrowserFlow -- my view here is that this is general-purpose tech and BrowserFlow doesn't have an agreement with LinkedIn. Any consequence of misuse of BrowserFlow is on the end-user, not you. (As spelled out by the terms at https://browserflow.app/terms, which contain a limitation of liability section.)
Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though.
by belval on 1/30/23, 6:47 PM
> Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data, or otherwise violating the LinkedIn User Agreement;
> Cease and desist marketing or advertising Browserflow as a tool or service to be used in a manner that violates LinkedIn’s User Agreement, or promoting Browserflow in any way that represents or suggests functionality or features that can be used to violate LinkedIn’s User Agreement;
> Cease and desist violating LinkedIn’s intellectual property rights by removing from all Browserflow materials all unauthorized uses of logos likely to cause confusion with LinkedIn’s trademark; and
> Affirm in writing that you will not engage in any violations of the LinkedIn User Agreement in the future.
Just remove all LinkedIn examples and tell them you will stop marketing it as a LinkedIn scraping tool in the future. I don't know your extension if you make any "significant" money then get a real lawyer to look it over.
by bityard on 1/30/23, 6:15 PM
You're asking random internet weirdos for business legal advice when you should definitely be contacting your lawyer instead.
by verdverm on 1/30/23, 6:50 PM
2) It does sound like your app is more general, like you say, similar to browser automation tools or AutoHotKey. The user requests are not coming from an IP you control. Remove references / examples to LinkedIn for sure. This is basically what they are asking you to do. Talk to a lawyer
Side note, I thought LinkedIn lost that case on appeal, and after being sent back down from the Supreme Court for re-evaluation.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-rules-that-data-scraping...
by phphphphp on 1/30/23, 6:36 PM
And for future reference, be very careful when promoting the way that people are using your product: plausible deniability is your friend.
by henryfjordan on 1/30/23, 6:49 PM
Linkedin vs hiQ was about the ability to scrape public data. (https://calawyers.org/privacy-law/ninth-circuit-holds-data-s...)
Pretty much everyone agrees that you need to follow the Linkedin terms if you are logged in, and those say no scraping. Your site has examples of scraping data from logged-in pages.
Normally you could say "it's just a tool, there are legit uses, go after the users", like in the Betamax case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
By including examples of breaking the Linkedin ToS on your site though, you might have opened yourself up to some kind of claim, maybe tortuous interference. I don't really know though, you should get a lawyer to look for you.
Again, I am not a lawyer, do not trust me, I am just some idiot who likes to read about copyright law about the internet on the internet. Get your own lawyer.
by clint on 1/30/23, 6:34 PM
by tenebrisalietum on 1/30/23, 6:36 PM
Showing people examples of a website really looks like you're advertising that your extension will work with that site, and it's probably not too far from successfully arguing intent. So begin by getting rid of that.
Maybe add a couple disclaimers:
"The terms of service of some websites do not allow automated workflows. This extension is not intended to be used to collect data in contradiction to a site's Terms of Service. Please thoroughly read and understand the site's Terms of Service before using this extension. [Developer] cannot assume any responsbility for any action a website may take against you or your account as a result of the use of this tool."
by localhost3000 on 1/30/23, 6:48 PM
by tptacek on 1/30/23, 7:28 PM
I would talk to a lawyer before sending them a written response, but you probably don't need legal advice just to scrape LinkedIn out of your product materials.
by lesuorac on 1/30/23, 7:37 PM
Keep in mind, LinkedIn ultimately lost that case [2]
> LinkedIn requires that you affirm that you have complied with LinkedIn’s requests, listed above, by February 10, 2023 ... In the event you do not comply with LinkedIn’s requests, LinkedIn will take appropriate action to protect its members and platform.
Definitely listen to the rest of the people who are saying talk to a lawyer. LinkedIn has obviously been doing the same in the interim; it'd be foolish to be the only side unprepared.
[1]: https://browserflow.app/linkedin.pdf [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
by blantonl on 1/30/23, 7:46 PM
1) Take down this post. LinkedIn's lawyers will almost certainly eventually read it and use whatever you've said here against you
2) Get an IP/Copyright lawyer and start following their instructions
This is really your only set of actions you should take if this extension is your "livelihood"
by samstave on 1/30/23, 7:57 PM
"Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data"
-
Then let me see exactly to whom you have been selling MY user data to, how much you made from it.
THEY need a cease and desist - because you are directly competing with their business model.
Fuck linkedin.
If you want anyone to stop scraping data, then you need to provide a dashboard to EVERY single linkedin user on exactly how linkedin has been using their PII to profit.
We need a change in the way people regard PII in silicon valley.
Just like it was stated - the only reason silicon valley is going after TikTok ban, is they cant compete with TikTok - so BAN them....
Linkedin does exactly what you are doing, thus they want you to cease and desist.
by siegel on 2/7/23, 6:12 AM
If you are ok with that, a carefully drafted response letter that shows that you take their concerns seriously and are taking steps to effect the above changes might end this. At a minimum, you'll be able to get clarity as to whether they want more that just stop referencing them.
by Awelton on 1/31/23, 2:07 AM
by indymike on 1/30/23, 7:14 PM
First, talk to a lawyer. LinkedIn is highly litigious about scraping, and browser plugins often fall in that category. The law isn't settled on the issue at all, and here's a law firm (Farella Braun + Martel) article about HiQ vs LinkedIn from just a few weeks ago: https://www.fbm.com/publications/what-recent-rulings-in-hiq-...
by csydas on 1/30/23, 7:20 PM
You have time to get a consultation and draft a response; the language in use is overly broad in the letter and intentionally so. This is to be rebutted and basically tell them "you will stop advertising that it _can_ scrape LinkedIn, but LinkedIn cannot outright ban any tool that might be used for scraping as that's not their right." A real attorney will write this in a very nice way with proper wording that you will stop advertising that it can scape LinkedIn but they can stuff the other parts of the demands wherever is convenient for them.
It will cost a bit of money regrettably, but it should be manageable.
by freediver on 1/30/23, 6:47 PM
It is not clear how is it that your company is violating their user agreement, when it is the users using the extension that are. The extension on its own does nothing? This is my very layman reaction and first thing I would seek to understand better from legal council.
by Dr_ReD on 2/2/23, 1:30 PM
I'd immediately remove every reference to linkedin -anywhere- and hard-block their domain in the code. Only after, I'd probably seek a release from the injunction.
Perhaps you should involve a lawyer, but if you won't, then limit yourself to a brief matter of fact explanation of what you've changed, focusing especially on the block in the source code. Do not address their points yourself. Refrain from any commentary, apologies, admissions.
I wouldn't go any further without a lawyer.
by 10g1k on 1/30/23, 10:42 PM
For example (assuming they can actually construct a prosecutable legal case), if you are outside the claimant's and any related court's jurisdiction, you just don't need to give a **. The worst they will ever be able to do to you is disable your account.
by forgotpwd16 on 1/30/23, 6:58 PM
>Even if I removed all the LinkedIn examples, Browserflow could still be used to automate or scrape LinkedIn because
Technically you can block it from being used on LinkedIn. But all they ask is not advertise that can do it. (And remove any trademarks of course.)
by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK on 1/30/23, 9:21 PM
by mattlondon on 1/30/23, 6:33 PM
I wouldn't bother trying to fight it as a one-person operation. Just accept that life is unfair and carry on. Unless that is you feel very strongly about it and am prepared to sacrifice yourself and future income and potentially employment prospects for the cause.
Good luck.
by david422 on 1/30/23, 9:33 PM
It was easier than me hiring a lawyer and/or fighting them in court or wherever that would have lead to. And allowed me to keep doing my development. YMMV
by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK on 1/30/23, 9:28 PM
by kevin_thibedeau on 1/30/23, 7:32 PM
by Zamicol on 1/30/23, 8:23 PM
by grundoon on 1/31/23, 2:15 AM
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF on 1/30/23, 6:33 PM
by paulschreiber on 1/31/23, 1:28 AM
by armatav on 1/30/23, 6:48 PM
by npteljes on 1/30/23, 9:06 PM
by apienx on 1/30/23, 7:21 PM
by krono on 1/30/23, 7:55 PM
Hopefully you manage to get out of this with your project still relatively intact and yourself otherwise unscathed.
by heresjohnny on 1/30/23, 8:30 PM
by Maursault on 1/30/23, 6:33 PM
by 93po on 1/30/23, 9:22 PM
by sergiotapia on 1/30/23, 7:34 PM
by artificial on 1/30/23, 7:31 PM
by user3939382 on 1/30/23, 7:53 PM
by shahbaby on 1/31/23, 1:48 AM
by tehlike on 1/30/23, 6:43 PM
I would be surprised if their letter has any teeth besides scaremongering.
get an opinion from legal, i am definitely not a lawyer.
by mirekrusin on 1/30/23, 7:39 PM
by saurik on 1/30/23, 7:11 PM
I am not a lawyer. I deal in this area, but I have lawyers--lots of lawyers--and my primary recommendation is that if you work in this space you have a lawyer.
I am going to tell you something, though, about this cease and desist. From the perspective of it effectively being "advice", I encourage you to consider it a "this is the minimum level of damage they can do to you": I am not saying there aren't interesting things that I don't know off--that's like, why we have lawyers--that would really screw you. I also haven't analyzed your extension in any way to know anything about your situation other than what you wrote.
> Cease and desist developing, offering, or using software or programs with features developed, marketed, or intended for automating activity on LinkedIn’s website or app, scraping LinkedIn member data, or otherwise violating the LinkedIn User Agreement.
The user agreement is an agreement that has limited consideration and limited recourse. Typically, they can take their balls back and send you home (it's their court, so they don't have to leave), so if they want to they can terminate your account... it isn't illegal to violate the terms of even a well-accepted and carefully done contract (which terms of service ain't), but the recourses for such a limited consideration is also pretty limited, and they know this enough that it even says it in the agreement: they can terminate your account.
If this were me, I barely use LinkedIn. I haven't had a normal looking job in forever and I have no interest in getting one ever again. I don't care about my profile (despite updating it every decade or so) and I only check for new connections and messages once every year or so. I really only use the service for cyberstalking, and never understood why people care so much about it. If they wanted to terminate my account, well, "big whoop", right? I'd tell them to go pound sand. Hell: that user agreement--which they are really trying to make legit--seriously says you can terminate it at any time (in exchange for your account being terminated).
But maybe you like LinkedIn and need your account. If that's the case, you should cease and desist and maybe even try to apologize while pleading a lack of knowledge of what you were doing or why it was a problem. (But of course, if they then terminate your account, come back with a literal vengeance and refuse to deal with them until they give you back your account.) But like, just realize: you likely aren't coming out of this one with a LinkedIn account if you want to keep developing this extension. FWIW, I have definitely done stuff like this for years despite large companies with lawyers wishing they could stop me.
That said, you also might get sued. You can always get sued: that's how our legal system works. They might not have a case, and maybe you can get it thrown out, but that's a leap. You should have a lawyer, and they can advice you on the risks of that. But I can say: if you can't afford to sit around in court for a year arguing with them about this, you might be playing in the wrong league, as the court system in the United States requires you to be prepared at any time to pay to be in court and very much assumes anyone doing commercial activity has a lawyer.
Again: I am not a lawyer. For all I know, you are also violating the CFAA or a law I have never heard of. I have not seen your extension. You also only gave us one sentence of the letter verbatim and one other reference (to hiQ) summarized (edit: I missed the pdf link, per above). And I have a lawyer I would consult before responding, a lawyer I have not consulted today on your behalf: I am just a guy who is telling you "expect to lose your account" and "the account wouldn't have mattered to me and I wouldn't be afraid, as someone who has successfully done stuff like this for years and has multiple lawyers" (edit: but also as someone who is super anal about trademarks).
by s17n on 1/30/23, 8:08 PM
by ok123456 on 1/30/23, 7:18 PM