IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HIQ ... - EPIC

Case: 17-16783, 11/27/2017, ID: 10667942, DktEntry: 42, Page 1 of 39

NO. 17-16783

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HIQ LABS, INC., V.

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

LINKEDIN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:17-cv-03301-EMC

The Honorable Edward M. Chen, District Court Judge

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, DUCKDUCKGO, AND INTERNET ARCHIVE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

Jamie Williams Corynne McSherry Cindy Cohn Nathan Cardozo ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Email: jamie@ Telephone: (415) 436-9333

Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case: 17-16783, 11/27/2017, ID: 10667942, DktEntry: 42, Page 2 of 39

DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION

Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, DuckDuckGo, and Internet Archive each individually state that they do not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of their stock.

i

Case: 17-16783, 11/27/2017, ID: 10667942, DktEntry: 42, Page 3 of 39

TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS.....................................................i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST...............................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 7 I. Accessing Publicly Available Information on the Internet Cannot

Give Rise to CFAA Liability........................................................................7 A. The CFAA Was Meant to Target Computer Break-Ins. ........................7 B. The CFAA Must Be Interpreted Narrowly to Avoid

Transforming the Statute Into an All-Purpose Mechanism For Enforcing Computer Use Policies. ..................................................9 C. LinkedIn Seeks to Transform the CFAA From an "Anti-Hacking" Statute Into a Tool For Policing Use of Publicly Available Information............................................................13 II. Linkedin's Interpretation of the CFAA Would Potentially Criminalize a Wide Range of Valuable Tools and Services. .....................19 III. Linkedin's Position Would Render the CFAA Unconstitionally Vague. ......................................................................................................... 26 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 29

ii

Case: 17-16783, 11/27/2017, ID: 10667942, DktEntry: 42, Page 4 of 39

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Advanced Fluid Systems, Inc. v. Huber,

28 F. Supp. 3d 306 (M.D. Pa. 2014) ................................................................... 11 Bell Aerospace Servs., Inc. v. U.S. Aero Servs., Inc.,

690 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 2010).............................................................. 11 Black & Decker (US), Inc. v. Smith,

568 F. Supp. 2d 929 (W.D. Tenn. 2008) ............................................................. 12 Clarity Servs., Inc. v. Barney,

698 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (M.D. Fla. 2010) .............................................................. 11 Cloudpath Networks, Inc. v. SecureW2 B.V.,

157 F. Supp. 3d 961 (D. Colo. 2016) .................................................................. 11 Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co.,

269 U.S. 385 (1926) ............................................................................................ 26 Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.,

942 F. Supp. 2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .......................................................... 17, 18 Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps, Inc.,

964 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................. 15 Cranel Inc. v. Pro Image Consultants Group,

LLC, 57 F. Supp. 3d 838 (S.D. Ohio 2014)......................................................... 11 Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc.,

739 F. Supp. 2d 927 (E.D. Va. 2010).................................................................... 8 Diamond Power Int'l, Inc. v. Davidson,

540 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2007) ............................................................... 12 Dresser-Rand Co. v. Jones,

957 F. Supp. 2d 610 (E.D. Pa. 2013) .................................................................. 11 EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc.,

274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001) ......................................................................... 10, 11

ii i

Case: 17-16783, 11/27/2017, ID: 10667942, DktEntry: 42, Page 5 of 39

Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC v. Frady, 2015 WL 1470852 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015).................................................... 11

Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. Lehman, 2015 WL 5714541 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2015) ................................................ 11

Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 844 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2016)...................................................................... passim

Giles Constr., LLC v. Tooele Inventory Solution, Inc., 2015 WL 3755863 (D. Utah Jun. 16, 2015)........................................................ 11

Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ............................................................................................ 26

Havens Realty Corp v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) ............................................................................................ 24

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 2017 WL 3473663 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017)................................................ 6, 14

Int'l Airport Ctrs. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006)............................................................................... 11

Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Werner-Masuda, 390 F. Supp. 2d 479 (D. Md. 2005) .................................................................... 12

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) ............................................................................................ 26

Lane v. Brocq, 2016 WL 1271051 (N.D. Ill. March 28, 2016) ................................................... 11

Lewis-Burke Assocs. LLC v. Widder, 725 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D.D.C. 2010) .................................................................... 11

LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)......................................................................... 8, 11

Nat'l City Bank, N.A. v. Republic Mortg. Home Loans, 2010 WL 959925 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2010).................................................. 12

iv

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download