[HN Gopher] Ask HN: LinkedIn sent me a cease and desist for my C...
___________________________________________________________________
Ask HN: LinkedIn sent me a cease and desist for my Chrome
extension. Help?
Hi HN, 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!
Author : dkthehuman
Score : 185 points
Date : 2023-01-30 18:11 UTC (4 hours ago)
| phphphphp wrote:
| A big part of LinkedIn's business is providing tools for
| recruiters to search the database of profiles and extract
| information, essentially, your extension is compromising their
| core revenue-generating product and you're loudly announcing it
| on your website. I am not a lawyer so take this with a grain of
| salt, but if you remove all reference to LinkedIn from your
| website immediately (and maybe go as far as blocking it for use
| on LinkedIn) you should be fine.
|
| And for future reference, be very careful when promoting the way
| that people are using your product: plausible deniability is your
| friend.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > And for future reference, be very careful when promoting the
| way that people are using your product: plausible deniability
| is your friend.
|
| That seems like excellent advice. After looking at the examples
| on the site, I'm kinda surprised LinkedIn is the only company
| that's complaining. It'd be safer to make some leading
| suggestions to get people thinking of all the interesting
| things they could automate, but _without_ ever using names,
| company specific-terminology, etc. Otherwise this arguably isn
| 't a general purpose tool, it's advertising specific features.
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| Seems like a pretty simple thing you can do here is just remove
| any mention of LinkedIn from your product and its marketing.
| People can use a generic tool to mess with LinkedIn, but that's
| not your problem, and it's not what the C&D is saying. You went
| out of your way to market your extension as a tool for messing
| with LinkedIn in ways their user agreement prohibits. Consider
| just not poking the bear anymore.
|
| 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.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Scraping is a grey area, even if other companies you advertise
| how to scrape didn't send you letters yet, they will once your
| product starts being popular. I'd advertise it as automation tool
| only, without any concrete examples. And maybe create an
| "unaffiliated" forum site where users share their own scripts
| that just happen to scrape this or that ...
| npteljes wrote:
| I'd remove the LinkedIn examples first. And then regain some of
| the LinkedIn exposure by astroturfing blog posts, YouTube videos,
| etc that show how to use Browserflow to scrape LinkedIn. While
| NOT connecting these two in any other way.
| blantonl wrote:
| You have should do the following immediately
|
| 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"
| onion2k wrote:
| To be fair to LinkedIn they do list a specific and limited set of
| problems in their letter. They're not asking you to stop building
| BrowserFlow, but to stop advertising it as a LinkedIn scraping
| tool, and using their logo to do that. It sounds to me (not a
| lawyer) that removing all the LinkedIn examples from your website
| and stopping using their logo would be enough to satisfy their
| request...
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's not trade mark infringement to use a logo to refer to a
| business entity, fwiw.
|
| There was a recent piece of caselaw relating to scraping, in
| USA, IIRC. I seem to remember it was allowed for user
| accessible areas.
|
| I'm not sure LinkedIn have a legal basis for their complaint,
| but of course that won't stop them.
|
| _This is not legal advice and does not relate to my
| employment._
| samstave wrote:
| This reminds me of a time where I was in SF taking pics of
| "the pigeon whisperer" lady (A lady who would feed the
| pigeons, and thus had a ton of them around her): She was in
| an alley near Financial District, and I was taking pics of
| her and all the pigeons.
|
| Some thug came out of some building telling me I was not
| allowed to take any pictures.
|
| I told him to get lost. and he said "Policy is that you
| cannot take pictures"
|
| I said "I am standing on public property. If I can see it
| with my eyes from where I am standing in public, then I can
| take pics of it. Get lost."
|
| Same goes for scraping a site: If I can see it in open public
| from any browser anywhere on the globe: that is open data. I
| dont give a shit what lawyers or companies think in this
| regard.
|
| The term "walled garden" exists - if you want your shit
| hidden... then dont make it available to the open web.
| truetraveller wrote:
| It's up to the user to use to use it on public pages vs private
| pages. I believe the most OP should do is be explicit: "This
| tool is only meant to scrape public pages". Just like a knife
| can be used to kill, does not mean Walmart should cease selling
| knives.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >Just like a knife can be used to kill, does not mean Walmart
| should cease selling knives.
|
| They could put warnings on them, though - much as they do
| with plastic bags. I'd sure feel safer.
| eschneider wrote:
| The about certainly sounds right, but do yourself a favor and
| check with an IP lawyer. A quick consult won't be too expensive
| and will probably save you down the line.
| samwillis wrote:
| IANAL, but I think this is right.
|
| My understanding of the LinkedIn v HiQ case is that it's legal
| to scrape public pages no matter what is in the website terms.
|
| Scraping "privet" pages can be illegal as you have had to
| explicitly agree to the terms.
|
| Your users would be breaking those terms, not you, as they do
| it on their own machine. As the parent said, just remove all
| reference to LinkedIn and you can move on.
| [deleted]
| zulln wrote:
| > Your users would be breaking those terms, not you, as they
| do it on their own machine. As the parent said, just remove
| all reference to LinkedIn and you can move on.
|
| There is some kind of cloud stuff here though.
| KieranMac wrote:
| I am an attorney whose primary focus is in this area of law.
| And this interpretation of the LinkedIn v. hiQ case is
| categorically wrong.
|
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-
| ex...
|
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-
| be...
| cocoa19 wrote:
| Do you take new clients? I'm interested in consultation in
| a related area. How can I contact you?
| KieranMac wrote:
| Shoot me an email at Kieran(at)McCarthyLG.com.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| The hiQ case is kinda weird because the part people here
| care about is scrapping public pages, but the claims still
| being litigated are all concerning activities done while
| logged-in or at least under the ToS. hiQ can win on the
| public scrapping claims but lose on the rest, there's no
| "win/lose" in law except on individual claims. The articles
| kinda bury that distinction and then claim "you don't want
| to go out of business like hiQ, get a lawyer".
| danbmil99 wrote:
| Hi (disclaimer: I was the CTO at hiQ)
|
| I think your analysis is pretty much spot-on, but I would
| ask you as a lawyer to answer this hypothetical:
|
| If hiQ had scrupulously and categorically avoided ever
| using logged-in accounts (as opposed to the facts claimed
| re 'Turkers') would LinkedIn still have had the leverage to
| shut us down?
|
| Also note that LinkedIn, as part of its strategy to force
| us to settle, threatened to permanently delete the
| _personal_ LI accounts of everyone who worked at hiQ. How
| does that sit with you ethically, knowing that a LinkedIn
| account is precisely what you must have in this business,
| especially when your company shuts down and you need to
| seek employment?
| KieranMac wrote:
| That's a really good question. The judge's original
| rulings were very hiQ-favorable, with those opinions
| becoming progressively less favorable over time. Whether
| it was facts learned in discovery or push-back from
| somewhere else, I wish I knew. _Something_ happened along
| with the way that made the judge more favorable to
| LinkedIn and less sympathetic to hiQ. I find it hard to
| reconcile the early TRO proceedings with what came later.
| And as I say in the articles, the judge never bothered to
| explain why he made the 180.
|
| That's pretty shady re: the threat to permanently delete
| the personal accounts. But it's also not surprising. At
| this point LinkedIn and their fellow social media cohorts
| are emboldened by these recent decisions and they're on
| the warpath. People need to be careful out there.
| danbmil99 wrote:
| If you want to have a private discussion on this subject
| please email me: danbmil99 at gmail dot com
| [deleted]
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| To summarize, hiQ was not found criminally liable under
| CFAA.
|
| However, they were civilly liable for breaking LinkedIn's
| terms of service.
|
| Furthermore, do not assume that a ruling pertaining to hiQ
| is relevant to you without doing further research.
|
| (This comment is targeted at people browsing HN for
| entertainment. I am not a lawyer and I don't know what I'm
| talking about.)
| KieranMac wrote:
| A better summary:
|
| Summary judgment was granted on behalf of LinkedIn
| against hiQ Labs for breach of contract. Summary Judgment
| was denied against hiQ Labs on its CFAA claims. So the
| court ruled that hiQ breached LinkedIn's contract.
|
| The parties settled their dispute with hiQ Labs agreeing
| to court-imposed injunction to never again scrape
| LinkedIn and by paying LinkedIn $500k.
|
| Despite the headlines, the final resolution of these
| disputes was a win for LinkedIn, not hiQ.
|
| For the longer version, read the posts above.
| cvalka wrote:
| We definitely need scrapping neutrality. If you allow any
| third party(including Google) to scrape your public data,
| you cannot prohibit anyone else doing the same.
| s17n wrote:
| You need to get a lawyer.
| artificial wrote:
| Careful using any trademarks without permission. Trademark law
| has some teeth. Remove anything without explicit consent to use.
| Business side it looks like an endorsement.
| heresjohnny wrote:
| You're using logos and trademarks of various companies in the
| context of helping people to violate ToS. The fact that only
| LinkedIn has reached out so far is quite interesting. I would
| expect more letters.
| saurik wrote:
| (edit: I see someone says you posted the letter as a pdf link and
| I missed it. And that you might be using their trademarks. Be
| very very very careful about trademarks: I often come on here to
| tell people not to fuck with trademarks if you do stuff like this
| as that's often the only case these companies have and it is so
| easy to avoid. I am tired though and have a meeting and am not
| going to read the pdf, especially as that will verge even more
| into the danger zone of me giving you legal advice. The rest of
| what I said here stands.)
|
| 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).
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's high time for lawyers acting in bad faith to be slapped
| down. In your response make sure to cite the relevant barratry
| statutes.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Don't give in to the demands of terrorists
| [deleted]
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Funny how Microsoft is suing you but they can basically rape the
| internet at large to build their GPT bot. It is true if you have
| enough money you can just do whatever you want.
| david422 wrote:
| I received a cease and desist letter from a company at one point.
| After the initial shock, I was able to just work with them with
| what they wanted - a name change and terms added to my product
| that indicated that I was not associated with them in any way.
|
| 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
| indymike wrote:
| > 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?
|
| 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-...
| user3939382 wrote:
| Funny LinkedIn is so proactive given that, of my hundreds of
| unique-per-org email addresses, the only one that gets spam is my
| LinkedIn email.
| tehlike wrote:
| you, as the provider of the extension, are not violating the
| rules. in fact, you are not even giving specialized linkedin
| features.... it's one of the general purpose automation stuff.
|
| I would be surprised if their letter has any teeth besides
| scaremongering.
|
| get an opinion from legal, i am definitely not a lawyer.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| You aren't (edit: though saw others say you provide examples of
| scraping on site so _you_ may be) in violation of user agreement
| (since as you say it 's a tool rather a user) but you're in
| trademark violation if you indeed use LinkedIn's logo.
|
| >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.)
| pancrufty wrote:
| He logged into LinkedIn, did scraping and documented the whole
| action. He definitely violated the user agreement at least
| once. Then he still provides instructions and tooling on how to
| do so, pls he does access LinkedIn servers on behalf of his
| customers.
|
| This is like building a bomb, publishing instructions, shipping
| the chemicals to the customer's door, "building it for the
| customer" for a fee, and still claiming no responsibility.
|
| IANAL, but... it would certainly sound sketchy to the least
| litigious lawyer in a room.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| What I'm saying, _he_ violated, by utilizing his own account
| to scrape & provide examples of the process and basically
| even having an account and developing a tool advertising
| those features, but the tool perse doesn't violate anything.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > As the Court in hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. found when it
| granted LinkedIn summary judgment against hiQ [1] ...
|
| 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
| Domenic_S wrote:
| > _Keep in mind, LinkedIn ultimately lost that case_
|
| Not really - the wiki page is confusing but the link is there:
| "In a November 2022 ruling the Ninth Circuit ruled that hiQ had
| breached LinkedIn's User Agreement and a settlement agreement
| was reached between the two parties." [0]
|
| It was a mixed ruling: hiQ successfully defended against the
| CFAA argument, and LI won the User Agreement argument.
|
| This is why OP needs to talk to a lawyer of their own who
| deeply understands this area of law. We all can paste links
| till the cows come home but only a real lawyer is going to have
| useful advice.
|
| More analysis by lawyers:
|
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/as-everyone-ex...
|
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
|
| (Disclaimer: I work at LI but don't work in and have no special
| insight into this area; comments are my own)
|
| 0: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-
| reach-...
| riverlong wrote:
| This is not legal advice, but here's what I would do:
|
| 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.
| latchkey wrote:
| > Do prepare for your LinkedIn account to be banned though.
|
| From all the recruiter spam I've received over the years, I
| almost see that as a good thing.
| sushid wrote:
| Engineers really love saying this but I take it as a good
| thing. It's like audibly complaining that you get too many
| Tinder matches.
| 93po wrote:
| I think it's more aptly compared to complaining you get a
| bunch of Tinder matches from people you don't find
| attractive.
| latchkey wrote:
| It really depends on how you look at it. If I get a whole
| bunch of fake AI matches from Tinder, I don't see that as a
| good thing either. Unless of course, fake AI is your
| 'thing'...
| mirekrusin wrote:
| If you invent browser which converts every page to pdf - you're
| in violation of some crap out there?
| wiml wrote:
| No, but that doesn't stop a company from having their lawyer
| send you a cease-and-desist letter.
| krono wrote:
| That's rich coming from a subsidiary of the company behind
| copypilot (which would of course be Microsoft)!
|
| Hopefully you manage to get out of this with your project still
| relatively intact and yourself otherwise unscathed.
| [deleted]
| ok123456 wrote:
| ignore it.
| samstave wrote:
| Linked in can get fucked ;
|
| " _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.
| bityard wrote:
| > but I'd like to continue building Browserflow because it's my
| livelihood
|
| You're asking random internet weirdos for business legal advice
| when you should definitely be contacting your lawyer instead.
| KieranMac wrote:
| Lawyers can be random internet weirdos, too.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| Since when does everyone have a lawyer waiting at their beck
| and call?
| cornel_io wrote:
| If you are selling a product to the public and get a legal
| threat from a big company, you need to get a lawyer, whether
| or not you have one to start with. Period, end of story. OP
| mentions it's their livelihood, so it's worth it.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| That's what retainers are for. Plenty of people have lawyers
| on retainer, just waiting for when they need them.
| buildbot wrote:
| Plenty of people with $$$$
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Or who view it as a necessary cost of doing business. I
| knew a guy who was into some shady stuff and he saved up
| $10k to give to his lawyer for when he would unexpectedly
| need some lawyer services.
| duped wrote:
| Anyone running a business needs legal services from time to
| time.
| stusmall wrote:
| This is something that is perfect for a hour or so consulting
| call and maybe with an additional fee to review the document.
| You don't need an existing relationship to run things like
| this by a lawyer. I've had to do it a few times and the
| charge has never broke the bank and has always been worth the
| value.
| dwater wrote:
| "Your lawyer" does not need to refer to someone who works
| exclusively for you, or someone you have on retainer. It
| could just mean the legal professional who you call when you
| need help with your business. If you have a business and have
| never needed a legal professional before, then you would
| interpret that statement to mean you should find one and
| start a relationship with them, as a successful business will
| likely need frequent legal assistance.
| veonik wrote:
| The point is that lawyers sent the cease and desist, so the
| other side does have lawyers at their beck and call. If you
| want to do anything other than what they demand you do, you
| are risking more lawyery-action. And even if you do comply,
| that doesn't stop them from continuing to bring action
| against you for some other reason, or for damages, or
| whatever they want, really.
|
| It may not be a system that is geared towards fair play, but
| if you want to play at all, you really should have a lawyer,
| too.
| vlunkr wrote:
| You don't need to have a lawyer ready all the time, but you
| can still get one.
| ye-olde-sysrq wrote:
| Everyone else is making this sound like a dumb question but
| it's not.
|
| I once got asked to sign a stupid contact. I was pretty sure
| it was not enforceable, and if I didn't sign I'd be fired and
| make an annoying enemy.
|
| Me and 3 other guys piled in and hired a lawyer for like an
| hour to have him look it over and tell us if we should sign
| it or quit.
|
| In the end, my split was $200 or so, and I didn't really
| learn anything that googling hadn't already told me. I signed
| it and then quit on my own terms a couple months later.
|
| Not many people these days, even devs, who will just chuck
| around money like this for far too little marginal benefit
| over (as someone else in a comment said) "asking randos on
| the internet".
| fragmede wrote:
| How do the other 3 people feel about it? Because that
| sounds like $200 well spent! Try asking "randos on the
| Internet" if a non-compete clause in a contract is valid,
| and if you're lucky, someone will ask you where you're
| located, which impacts whether or not the clause is legally
| enforceable. If not, someone will spout off the answer as
| it affects them, which is great, except if you're in a
| different state that advice may be dangerously wrong. In
| this case, the $200 didn't reveal anything drastically
| different, but at the end of the day, for anything complex,
| I'd much rather spend my share of $1,000 to make sure I'm
| not about to get the short end of the stick. If you've
| gotten the really short end of the stick before, you'll see
| why $200 is _cheap_.
| ye-olde-sysrq wrote:
| Similarly. I mean, I knew it would be $200 or so, and I
| ended up going ahead and doing it. So what I actually
| ended up doing was in line with your sentiment "$200 is
| cheap compared to getting fucked".
|
| And if presented with the same scenario again, I'd
| probably do it again, though probably with some chagrin.
|
| But my point is, $200 isn't a ton but it's not nothing,
| and if you're already potentially going to be fucked, the
| probability of $200 being in the "not nothing" category
| is probably higher. And if it wasn't something a few
| other people were stuck with too, it'd have been quite a
| bit more. (Hard to figure the exact bill because one of
| us decided to talk to him for a lot longer to check on
| some specific things, so we just venmo'd him for what he
| thought our % of it was).
|
| So - I guess what I mean is - even for fairly privileged
| people, "just check with a lawyer" is not something you
| "just" do.
|
| And I find it super annoying that assholes (like LinkedIn
| for OP, and the person who was forcing me to sign the
| contract) can just write shit down and throw it at you
| and then you're supposed to spend $500+ to check them on
| their bullshit or you're the one in hot water.
|
| (Though, that said, OP's example isn't perfect because
| using the LI logo probably should've been a "hmm wait a
| sec" moment for him. But also if all LI emailed him about
| was "stop using the logo" then he similarly probably
| wouldn't be feeling the need to seek legal counsel).
| Rastonbury wrote:
| Even the small time mom and pop outfits get lawyers to
| reviews contracts.. If you have a big legal issue get legal
| advice, it's like getting a medical when you have a decently
| worrying health issue
| hatsix wrote:
| I mean, since when does everyone have a chef waiting at their
| beck and call?
|
| Since they invented restaurants.
|
| If you want a meal made for you, you go to the business and
| ask for a meal. If you want someone to lawyer for you, you go
| to the business and ask for some lawyering.
| fragmede wrote:
| Since everyone became an adult. Consider it one of those
| untaught lessons about growing up. You _should_ have one, or
| at least, know how to access one, just like doing your taxes,
| either with a CPA or by hand, or like going to the dentist.
| Your life may have taken a different route, and you 've not
| come across the need for one, but it's like getting married
| or having children. As an actualized adult, you should be
| aware that lawyers exist in more than a passing fashion or
| what you saw on Law and Order.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Scraping is a grey area - nobody likes their site being worked by
| bots, except maybe by Google! Even if other companies you
| advertise didn't send you letters yet, they will, once your
| product starts being popular and they notice an uptick in
| unproductive traffic. I'd advertise it as an automation tool
| only, without any concrete examples. And maybe create an
| "unaffiliated" forum site where users share their own scripts
| that just happen to scrape this or that ...
| csydas wrote:
| As people have said, just contact a lawyer willing to provide a
| consultation, and likely take their services to get assistance in
| addressing a response.
|
| 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.
| freediver wrote:
| Get legal advice.
|
| 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.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| LinkedIn User Agreement may apply for people who agree to it, not
| everybody on the planet Earth.
| apienx wrote:
| Remove all mentions of LinkedIn, logos, links and examples ASAP.
| Don't fight it.
| 93po wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but I would strongly recommend not responding to
| that letter until you've spoken to one (and possibly never, even
| after talking to a lawyer, if that is their guidance)
| belval wrote:
| Not a lawyer but:
|
| > 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.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I'd remove any mention of LinkedIn, but I also wouldn't tell
| them anything. You've removed anything they'd sue you to
| remove, writing to them afterwards gives them more material to
| nail you with in the future.
|
| Not a lawyer, either.
| arwineap wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Remove all linked in examples, and indicate that you will not
| include them in your docs again
|
| I wouldn't admit to writing or advertising this as a linkedin
| scraping tool regardless of if that was my original intention
| or not
| bee_rider wrote:
| > Affirm in writing that you will not engage in any violations
| of the LinkedIn User Agreement in the future.
|
| This seems like the weirdest one to me. I mean if they don't
| have a LinkedIn user account, why should they abide by the User
| Agreement?
| throwanem wrote:
| Why would you assume someone who develops a browser extension
| marketed in part as a LinkedIn scraping tool does not have a
| LinkedIn account?
| nkozyra wrote:
| I think the matter of whether they have an account or not
| is irrelevant. The violations listed are not directed to a
| LinkedIn account.
| throwanem wrote:
| The cited EULA terms don't depend for applicability on
| creating an account, only on accessing LinkedIn. Whether
| or not that's enforceable and in what jurisdiction is a
| different question, and not one that's relevant here;
| unless OP is extremely foolish, we are not about to see
| that question tested _again_ in court.
|
| In any case, LinkedIn accounts are clickwrapped in the
| EULA, and you can't build a scraper for stuff behind
| their auth wall - which, I believe as a direct response
| to _LinkedIn vs. HiQ_ , is more or less everything they
| serve - without being able to get past it yourself. So
| the question of whether or not OP has agreed to the EULA,
| which LinkedIn complains Browserflow is marketed in part
| to violate, isn't remotely germane to a meaningful
| discussion of the issue.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I disagree that it is irrelevant. A contract applies to
| the person who signed it, not the (inanimate) account.
|
| I mean if they have a contract with LinkedIn and they are
| violating it, they should stop lol. Since they make money
| from the tool apparently, and LinkedIn accounts are
| worthless, I'd probably stop violating the contract by
| terminating my LinkedIn account.
| throwanem wrote:
| You don't think a team of Microsoft lawyers could find a
| way to sue you for marketing to LinkedIn users a tool
| expressly designed and marketed for the purpose of
| violating the EULA those users agreed to as a condition
| of creating their accounts? Thank you for exemplifying
| the value of the old advice against litigating _pro se_ ,
| I suppose.
|
| LinkedIn is being a lot more generous here than they
| really need to be. Getting an Ask HN to the front page
| about it wasn't terribly smart, but then this is why the
| only good advice for OP in this thread is "talk to a
| lawyer", which anyone who's already incorporated an LLC
| really should not need telling, but whatever.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is a general purpose tool. I mean autohotkey or any
| open source web browser could be hypothetically
| used/modified to scrape websites. What do you think about
| just removing that example?
| throwanem wrote:
| I think if I received the same C&D, I'd email it to my
| retained lawyer and ask for advice. I think I would
| expect to be advised I should comply fully and without
| undue delay. And I think that's exactly what I would then
| proceed to do.
|
| (I also think we're talking past one another, which tends
| to happen when I participate in discussions like this.
| I'm not a lawyer, but when you spend long enough sleeping
| with someone who is, it's amazing what you pick up - and
| how many silly notions originating in the assumption that
| 'law is really just a kind of code, right?' you find
| yourself perhaps ungently disabused of.)
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is possible that they have an account, but it is a
| general purpose tool for scraping, so I assumed it isn't
| necessarily the case. If they have an account and are
| blatantly violating the TOS, that's just looking for
| trouble, they should stop.
| belval wrote:
| IANAL, but there is a big chance that this is just a
| boilerplate cease and desist used for every project that
| comes up when you google "scraping linkedin". I would not
| over think it.
|
| Lawyer/legal time is costly, they probably didn't look into
| it too deep, they just saw the LinkedIn logo with "Scrape
| LinkedIn" written next to it on OP's main page.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Welcome to _the Law_! They can ask, and explaining that you
| are not party to their EULA is a perfectly valid
| counterargument. They will argue that by accessing their
| website with the service you are agreeing to the terms, and
| then you wind up in expensive litigation.
|
| The demands seem pretty reasonable in this case, I'd probably
| accede.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I clearly don't know anything about the law but I'd
| definitely want to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to that
| point, assuming I didn't have a LinkedIn account. If I
| didn't _already_ have an agreement with LinkedIn, right
| when they've noticed me and are getting litigious sounding
| seems at least to this layman like the wrong time to start
| signing agreements they've sent.
| xypage wrote:
| A user agreement isn't just a "person with account"
| agreement, in fact, if you read the first sentence of the
| introduction [1] to their current one, you'll see it says
|
| > You agree that by clicking "Join Now", "Join LinkedIn",
| "Sign Up" or similar, registering, accessing or using our
| services (described below), you are agreeing to enter into a
| legally binding contract with LinkedIn
|
| in other words, anyone that "access[es] or us[es]" their
| services are agreeing to the contract. This definitely
| includes what OP is doing.
|
| [1]: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-
| agreement#introduction
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| So if I write on a piece of paper "If bob breathes, he owes
| me $100" that would also be valid contract?
|
| Not a lawyer, but that is ridiculous. You'd have to accept
| the terms to even be permitted to read the terms, as they
| are hosted on linkedin.com.
| xypage wrote:
| No of course not, but there's a huge difference between
| someones bodily autonomy and using a service that you
| provide. Are you saying that companies should only be
| able to apply their terms of service to people who make
| accounts on their website? Or that they should host those
| terms somewhere besides their own domain so that you can
| access them without having to abide by them?
| kadoban wrote:
| For a couple of reasons, no.
|
| Bob would have to agree. And Bob would have to be getting
| _something_ out of it.
|
| (I'm not a lawyer)
| mattnewton wrote:
| Do stop using their trademark or making reference to them
| immediately and let them know you have done so, ie points 1-3.
| But, I would say do _not_ agree to any future conduct in
| writing on behalf of your business without talking to a lawyer
| first - I think you need to carefully word a response around
| that to avoid liability.
|
| IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.
| Someone wrote:
| > Affirm in writing that you will not engage in any violations
| of the LinkedIn User Agreement in the future.
|
| "I'll never do it again" may help decrease the punishment if
| this ends up in court, but why would you promise that now?
| IANAL, certainly not for every jurisdiction on earth, but I
| would think that's risky from your side in that you'd have to
| agree to their user agreement, even if, in the future, they put
| things in it that aren't legally enforceable.
| etothepii wrote:
| IANAL. I know the US is messed up but this isn't ending up in
| criminal court so punishment doesn't seem like the right
| word. Surely, damages would be ineffective by future conduct.
| I can't see a jury award punitive damages or exemplary
| damages for scrapping LinkedIn.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Without a lawyer (get a lawyer!) I would remove all references to
| linked in and add an exception to the extension that prevents it
| working on linked in (perhaps display a message with a link to
| the cease and desist message).
|
| 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.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| You absolutely want to find legal representation and ask them.
| Point out the things you pointed out in this post and ask what
| they think. Beyond that, I would hesitate to advise. Heed the
| advice of your legal counsel; find legal counsel if you have not
| already.
| localhost3000 wrote:
| A few years ago I got multiple cease and desist emails from a
| FAANG for a Chrome extension they didn't like. I ignored them and
| they eventually went away. Sending scary sounding emails to indie
| devs is extremely low cost.
| guntars wrote:
| How could the OP make it a higher cost without necessarily
| having to get a lawyer themselves? This kind of behavior by
| LinkedIn leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it's
| essentially bullying and I wish there was a way to bleed them a
| little by forcing them to have their $500/hr lawyer respond to
| some inane but legally necessary requests.
| Maursault wrote:
| Remove all examples and ban LinkedIn in your code, so that it
| can't work with LinkedIn. If you have a LinkedIn account, delete
| it. Problem solved. If they sue you, do not spend every dime on
| an attorney trying to fight them. Lose. Then declare bankruptcy
| immediately and protect your assets. LinkedIn can suck it. Also,
| don't be afraid. It costs them nothing to send a S&D letter. It
| costs them a fortune to sue you, for which they can only achieve
| some extremely unprofitable satisfaction. I would even send a
| copy of a notarized letter to them telling them to stop
| contacting you. Do it every time they contact you. On their
| fourth attempt to intimidate you, go to a magistrate and request
| a restraining order against them.
| [deleted]
| __derek__ wrote:
| > Then declare bankruptcy immediately and protect your assets.
|
| Invert this: protect your assets before considering bankruptcy.
| As "the creator and sole developer" OP may not get any
| liability protection from their LLC.
| phphphphp wrote:
| terrible advice that may be parody, but just in case you're
| being sincere: you cannot bank on a big corporation getting
| cold feet about legal action because legal action is as much
| about the message it sends to future opposition as it is about
| the individual action. For example, in the message received by
| the OP, LinkedIn refer to their legal action taken against HiQ.
| LinkedIn doesn't _want_ to sue people but they would do it
| without a second thought if it was judged to be beneficial to
| them. The cost of being sued and losing and going bankrupt for
| the OP is huge, and while some people are willing to lose
| everything to take a principled stand, it 's irresponsible to
| encourage it. If the OP wants to risk everything to stick it to
| LinkedIn, he should go for it, life is short, but if he's a
| pragmatic person concerned about his livelihood, he should
| rollover immediately and live to fight another day.
| Maursault wrote:
| So, because you disagree that LinkedIn will pursue expensive
| litigation for no real benefit to them, you're dismissing
| everything? You're saying the OP _should_ be afraid? _Should_
| spend a fortune on attorneys? _Should not_ declare bankruptcy
| upon loss? I respect that you disagree. I do not respect your
| focus on a minor detail to dismiss everything.
| phphphphp wrote:
| A portion of your comment was aligned with my own view,
| sure, but I read the substance of your comment to be
| regarding the likelihood of LinkedIn following through on
| their threat and the correct course of action for the OP if
| that happens.
|
| The OP should absolutely be very afraid because they're
| posing a threat to LinkedIn's hundreds of millions of
| dollars in revenue _from a very vulnerable position_.
| Bankruptcy is brutal and expensive, the OP's focus should
| be on avoiding litigation _no matter what_ : telling
| LinkedIn to suck it is not an option, and bankruptcy is not
| the "oops hehe bad roll I'll try again" option you portray
| it to be.
| Maursault wrote:
| Well, that's what I would do. They can't squeeze blood
| out of a turnip.
| riverlong wrote:
| This is absolutely terrible and irresponsible advice. "Declare
| bankruptcy immediately and protect your assets" is the worst
| possible way to handle the situation, since: 1. Losing the
| court case does exactly what you don't want to happen here; 2.
| On top of that, you get to go bankrupt! Ruin!
| geraldwhen wrote:
| You keep your primary car, house, and retirement accounts in
| bankruptcy. It's not the end of the world.
| riverlong wrote:
| It's much worse than that. You will be on the hook for
| garnished wages for years to pay off your creditors. And
| you will have plenty of creditors because the GP's advice
| says "go lose a civil case". You know what a civil case
| has? Damages. You know how large the damages are if your
| strategy is to lose? Big. They have a trademark case so
| they could get attorney's fees. We're talking about a seven
| figure bill in fees alone if the case goes to trial.
| Following this advice could have the OP getting his wages
| garnished as long as he lives to pay off a multimillion
| dollar debt. Good luck with that.
| Maursault wrote:
| Wrong. That is the whole point of declaring bankruptcy,
| because the debts can't be paid. Nearly all debt,
| including civil damages, will be wiped clean, and this
| includes one's own attorneys fees. Why would you say
| these things when it is abundantly clear you have
| absolutely no idea? If what you said was true, no one
| would ever declare bankruptcy. It's the whole point of
| it, to be free of debt. No one gets their wages garnished
| after declaring bankruptcy. Never happened, ever.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_U
| nited_S...
| phphphphp wrote:
| Depends on the type of bankruptcy and in what
| jurisdiction. Even in the US with very creditor-
| favourable bankruptcy laws, you can't just declare
| bankruptcy to get out of financial obligations: owing a
| bunch of people money is not the basis for bankruptcy.
| Yes, if bankruptcy is approved, wage garnishing will
| stop, but it can resume depending on the type! Bankruptcy
| is not a get out of debt free card, it's the last stop
| after ruin.
| Maursault wrote:
| Before ruin, you mean. It prevents ruin, defranchising
| and homelessness. The worst thing about it is what it
| does to your credit rating. That's not unbearable.
| armatav wrote:
| Go look at Proxycurl - they've been scraping LinkedIn for ages;
| have a lawyer look it over.
| clint wrote:
| If its your livelihood, hire a lawyer to look into this. The
| dweebs on this forum are not going to be able to help you here.
| ugjka wrote:
| The problem here is that one of his examples involves "scraping
| linkedin". Just get rid of that
| Zamicol wrote:
| For all the legal people here, what's the legality of something
| like "Return YouTube Dislike"?
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/return-youtube-dis...
| henryfjordan wrote:
| IANAL. You probably should get a lawyer ASAP.
|
| 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.
| bxji wrote:
| There was a third ruling in November 2022 for the case, so I
| wouldn't say hiQ won. Based on a quick scan, the ruling ended
| up being that hiQ did violate TOS but that no action ended up
| being taken for either side.
|
| https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-finds-hiq-breache...
| henryfjordan wrote:
| oh interesting, thanks for the link. Yeah I guess they only
| "won" on the CFAA claims and even then your link makes it
| sounds less clear than the older link I provided.
|
| What is clear is that Linkedin is not playing around about
| logged-in scrapping.
| 10g1k wrote:
| The fact that a "cease & desist" or "terms & conditions" exists
| doesn't necessarily mean anything. It does not automatically,
| intrinsically carry legal weight or meaning of any sort. Any
| random person can put a "licence" or T&C page on their website,
| or send an email with a couple of supposedly legal terms in it,
| but that doesn't mean anything.
|
| 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.
| verdverm wrote:
| 1) Talk to a lawyer, many will do an initial consultation for
| free. Expect to pay money to have them help you with response
| letters. I would not recommend doing this alone
|
| 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...
| KieranMac wrote:
| Again, this is old news and wrong.
|
| https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/12/hello-youve-be...
| verdverm wrote:
| I assume you are only referring to the LinkedIn losing part
| of my comment. It would be nice if your comment was more
| specific to this. Thank you for sharing the link though, I
| recall seeing that page too
|
| As I understand it, OP built a no-code browser automation
| extension, which can be used to create a LinkedIn automation.
| It does not come with this ability out of the box, though it
| seems easy to install: https://browserflow.app/shared/1ac2a86
| 8-02ac-4435-a91f-b0203...
|
| I'm not convinced that LinkedIn has a solid case for Cease
| and Desist. The court didn't find that someone cannot _build_
| such a tool, only that they cannot run it (_conditions &
| nuances_). OP is not running any such scraping service
| (except maybe during development), and it is in fact a user
| of the browser extension who would be violating the ToS. This
| is not unique to Browserflow and the same situation could
| exist for any browser automation tool.
|
| That being said, LinkedIn (Microsoft) could bury OP in legal
| fees, so decide if you want to die on that hill...
|
| Maybe OP could create a community hub and use 230 to shield
| them self from user submissions of LinkedIn automations?
| KieranMac wrote:
| Read the link; there's plenty of detail there. Not going to
| comment on the specifics of OP's case in a public forum,
| but if the OP wants a free consult, I'll do that.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Not a lawyer.
|
| 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."
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-30 23:02 UTC)