Linked In Lawsuit

LinkedIn : Unwanted Emails Lawsuit

Arash Koushkebaghi CSC 300

Dr. Clark Turner

October 19, 2015

Abstract

In September 2015, LinkedIn came under criticism for one of their email features. A class action lawsuit had been filed over unwanted emails from LinkedIn to their users and LinkedIn agreed to settle. The complaint stems from the fact that the two additional emails that LinkedIn would send to their member’s contacts were mailed without consent of the members [5]. Do social networking sites have the right to access your email contacts without your consent in order to promote their product? It is a social issue just as much it is a moral one. This essay deals with the privacy of citizens and larger corporations and after considering the SE code of ethics, it is clear that the lawsuit was justified.

1

Contents

1 Known Facts 2

2 Research Question 2

3 Extant Arguments 3 3.1 Argument Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1.1 social network main purpose is communication. . . . . 3 3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s law does not apply” . . . . . 3

3.2 Argument Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2.1 Access to individual’s information without their consent 3 3.2.2 Endorsement without pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 Analysis 3 4.1 Why is SE code applicable to this problem? . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.1.1 Not knowingly using software that is obtained or re- tained either illegally or unethically. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.1.2 Use the property of a client or employer only in ways properly authorized, and with the client’s or employer’s knowledge and consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.1.3 Keep private any confidential information gained in their professional work, where such confidentiality is consistent with the public interest and consistent with the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5 Conclusion 4

1

1 Known Facts

The LinkedIn ”Add Connection” fea- ture was introduced as a quick and efficient way for users to gain ”en- dorsements” through the contacts in their email address book. LinkedIn sent an ”endorsements email” to con- tacts in a user’s email who have not signed up for the site.[7] Doing this was supposed to be beneficial for all three parties. [4]

For LinkedIn, they can poten- tially gain thousands of new users just through an email service, for the LinkedIn user, they can gain more people in their network that can en- dorse their specific skillset, and for the non-LinkedIn user they can po- tentially become members of the best professional social networking site.[2]

The problem with this feature was that in addition to the first email, LinkedIn then sent two addi- tional emails to the user’s contacts that made no response to the initial email. In the beginning, the law- suit claimed that no LinkedIn user had given the company access to their email contacts [2]. While this claim was thrown out by a judge in the Dis- trict Court of California, the judge did find that LinkedIn had no right to send any additional emails.[5]

The judge said the company’s practice of then sending reminder messages to contacts who hadn’t re- sponded was grounds for the lawsuit

to go forward [2].LinkedIn’s sending repeated e-mails could impair repu- tations by allowing contacts to think the network member is “unable to take the hint” that they don’t want to join the website. In addition, LinkedIn may have violated Califor- nia’s right of publicity, which pro- tects against the appropriation of someone’s name or likeness, without their consent, for commercial pur- poses [7].Although LinkedIn claims no wrongdoing, they agreed to settle the lawsuit for 13 million Dollars.[5]

2 Research Question

Should LinkedIn have access to their user’s email contacts for the purposes of increasing their user base or pro- moting their product?

Many distinct social networking websites offer better service by ac- cessing their client’s basic email in- formation only with client’s con- sent. ”Add Connection” feature pro- vided by LinkedIn, presents thought- provoking points to other social net- working companies of whether it is ethical to access their client’s email to gain more information about their client’s likeness, without their con- sent even though this might be bene- ficial for the company, the users and also non-users[5].

2

3 Extant Arguments

3.1 Argument Affirma- tive

3.1.1 social network main pur- pose is communication.

LinkedIn’s representatives have pro- posed that the company has a right to free speech when software engineers are in the process of sending the mul- tiple follow up emails.This goes along with the theory that the purpose of all social networks is to allow people to communicate with each other.

3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s law does not apply”

The company adds that California’s law regulating endorsements doesn’t apply if it would conflict with free- speech protections that guarantee people’s right to discuss matters of public concern.[7] “Reminder emails concern matters of public interest that outweigh plaintiffs’ asserted eco- nomic interests, and therefore consti- tute activity protected by the First Amendment” [1].

3.2 Argument Negative

3.2.1 Access to individual’s in- formation without their consent

Not only do new users have the po- tential of inadvertently sending out hundreds of emails to everyone in their contact list (and triggering the two follow up emails). Even after someone unsubscribes from the “Add Connection” feature, LinkedIn still has access of the user’s email informa- tion to send future emails promoting other products and services.

3.2.2 Endorsement without pay

LinkedIn is using individual’s like- nesses and emails to push their own products without payment. [4]

4 Analysis

4.1 Why is SE code ap- plicable to this prob- lem?

Going by the principles in the SE code alone it is evident that the LinkedIn question aligns with the SE Code. These principles ensure that companies who have great ca- pabilities to harm individuals are obligated to use their efforts for

3

good[6].Principle 2 deals with the re- lationship between the Client and the Employer[3]. In Principles 2.02, 2.03 and 2.05 are directly related.These objectives represent the ethical rela- tionship that LinkedIn should have followed, to maintain an ideal rela- tionship with clients[3] .

4.1.1 Not knowingly using soft- ware that is obtained or retained either illegally or unethically.

In this case, the email information LinkedIn obtained from their clients was retrieved unethically and it was still used to send emails[3].

4.1.2 Use the property of a client or employer only in ways properly au- thorized, and with the client’s or employer’s knowledge and consent.

LinkedIn users claim that they never authorized the website to access their email contacts for referrals and recommendations[3].

4.1.3 Keep private any con- fidential information gained in their profes- sional work, where such confidentiality is con- sistent with the public interest and consistent with the law.

The information that LinkedIn ob- tained was not kept private and used to send future emails promoting other products[3].

5 Conclusion

No, it was not ethical for LinkedIn to access their user’s email contacts and the lawsuit against LinkedIn was completely justified[3]. They lacked the permission from their users to ac- cess their email contacts and were in violation of Principle 2 in the SE code[3].

4

References

[1] W. Davis. Linkedin argues it has free speech right to email users’ friends, march 2014. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/ 234555/linkedin-argues-it-has-free-speech-right-to-email.

html.

This article details the arguments LinkedIn use in their lawsuit.

[2] J D’onfro. Linkedin might have to pay you money for spamming your email contacts., October 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/ linkedin-settles-class-action-lawsuit-2015-10.

Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.

[3] Association for computing Machinery. Software engineering code of ethics and professional practice, 2015. http://www.acm.org/about/se-code.

[4] V. Goel. Users sue linkedin. retrieved from new york times., October 2013. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/ users-sue-linkedin-over-harvesting-of-e-mail-addresses/.

This article discusses the initial lawsuit that was brought against LinkedIn in 2013. The plaintiffs claimed that LinkedIn hacked their emails.

[5] J. Kastrenakes. Linkedin agrees to settle unwanted email law- suit., October 2015. http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9444067/ linkedin-email-lawsuit-settlement-add-connections.

Details the settlement that LinkedIn reached in their lawsuit.

[6] Elaine Lau. The ethics of data extraction through illegal means, illus- trated by the case of aaron swartz, 2013.

[7] J. Rosenblatt. Linkedin ordered to face customer e-mail con- tacts lawsuit. retrieved from bloomberg business, June 2013. https:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-13/

linkedin-ordered-to-face-customer-e-mail-contacts-lawsuit.

Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.

5