Computer Fraud and Abuse Act implications for web scraping

[JB84]

Jurisdiction

US Federal Law

I'm looking for help interpreting cases regarding the implications of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, relating to web scraping. There are two cases in particular that I would like to contrast: HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation and Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc.. I am basically trying to understand the conditions that make web scraping legal.

It seems that whether the data is available publicly (without registration?) is an important factor. What else are the key determinants? It seems that scraping is against the terms of use for most sites, but I'm not sure how that translates to what actions are prohibited by CFAA.

 

[adjusterjack]

The answers to your questions can be had by actually reading the full text of 18 USC 1030 et seq.

ComputerFraudAbuseAct.pdf (columbia.edu)

And by studying the full case decisions.

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F. 4th 1180 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2022 - Google Scholar

Which appears to be the most current decision. Prior decisions on that case are listed at:

hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-16783 (9th... - Google Scholar

Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1191 - Dist. Court, CD California 2008 - Google Scholar

And see:

Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc.. - Google Scholar

 

[Zigner]

Wait - are you telling the OP to do their own homework? Shocking!

 

[army judge]

There are two cases in particular that I would like to contrast: HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation and Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Technologies, Inc.. I am basically trying to understand the conditions that make web scraping legal.

Bon chance, mate.

 

[adjusterjack]

Wait - are you telling the OP to do their own homework? Shocking!

If I give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
If I teach him how to fish, he eats for a lifetime.