In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2013 WL 844291, 932 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (2013)
- Written by Meagan Messina, JD
Facts
LinkedIn Corporation (defendant), a professional networking website, stored members’ passwords on its website. LinkedIn’s privacy policy stated that personal information and data was protected but that there was no guarantee that the information would not be accessed through a security breach. Members could upgrade to paid premium accounts for additional networking tools and features, but the privacy policy and security services were the same for both paying and nonpaying members. In 2012, hackers infiltrated LinkedIn’s systems and posted 6.5 million passwords and email addresses on the internet. LinkedIn then switched to a stronger password-encryption system. Kate Szpyrka and Khalilah Wright (plaintiffs) filed their first amended consolidated complaint on November 26, 2012, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Szpyrka and Wright brought the action on behalf of themselves and a class of all members who had paid for premium accounts prior to the breach, along with a subclass of all premium members who had had their personal information compromised as a result of the breach. Both Szpyrka and Wright paid for premium memberships, but only Wright alleged that her information had been posted after the breach. Szpyrka and Wright alleged only economic harm, and they did not allege that they had read LinkedIn’s privacy policy. LinkedIn moved to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davila, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.