> Enrich.chat gives AI agents verified work emails and mobiles. To use it from an agent, read https://enrich.chat/agents.md . This is the Markdown version of https://enrich.chat/blog/is-linkedin-scraping-legal/

# Is it legal to scrape LinkedIn? What the courts, LinkedIn's rules and privacy regulators say

Three kinds of law ask three different questions: access, contract and privacy. Here is what the court opinions, LinkedIn's own terms and regulator pages say, and what each one does not decide.

By Enrich.chat Editorial. Updated October 15, 2026.

**Short answer:** There is no single answer, because three kinds of law apply. In [hiQ v. LinkedIn](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf), the Ninth Circuit said that using public profiles is likely not unauthorized access under the federal hacking law. But [LinkedIn's User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) bans scraping, hiQ later agreed to a $500,000 judgment, and EU regulators say public data is still personal data. This is not legal advice.

## Key takeaways

- Access law: in a preliminary 2022 ruling, the Ninth Circuit said using public web pages is likely not access "without authorization" under the CFAA. It did not decide contract or privacy claims.
- Contract: section 8.2 of LinkedIn's User Agreement bans tools that scrape profiles. hiQ ended with a $500,000 consent judgment and a permanent injunction in December 2022.
- Contract results depend on wording: a 2024 judge ruled Meta's terms did not bar logged-off scraping of public pages. That reads Meta's wording, not LinkedIn's.
- Privacy: public does not mean free to use. France's CNIL fined KASPR 240,000 euros in 2024 over LinkedIn contact details that people had limited to their network.
- In August 2026 the Ninth Circuit held that, on its record, the user and not an AI vendor accessed Amazon's computers. It said Amazon's terms of service still apply.

## Is it legal to scrape LinkedIn?

There is no single answer, because three kinds of law ask three different questions. Access law asks whether someone entered a computer without permission. Contract law asks whether someone broke LinkedIn's written rules. Privacy law asks whether someone had a lawful reason to collect personal data. Passing one test does not pass the other two.

Scraping means using software to pull data from web pages. The Ninth Circuit describes it as [extracting data from a website and copying it into a structured format](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf). This guide covers US federal court rulings, LinkedIn's own rules, and European and UK privacy regulators, as of October 15, 2026. It is general information, not legal advice, and it does not cover copyright, US state privacy laws or other countries. We explain the law here. We do not recommend scraping LinkedIn.

**Figure 1: Three questions about scraping LinkedIn.** Three stacked cards. Access law asks whether someone entered a computer without permission, and rests on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the rulings in Van Buren, hiQ and Power Ventures. Contract law asks whether someone broke the site's written rules, and rests on section 8.2 of LinkedIn's User Agreement. Privacy law asks whether there is a lawful basis for the personal data, and rests on the CNIL, the Dutch authority, the EDPB and the ICO. Each card also names what it leaves open.

*Three questions, three bodies of law. A ruling on one does not answer the others. Sources: [18 U.S.C. § 1030](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030), [LinkedIn User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) and [CNIL](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000).*

## Does the federal hacking law ban scraping public LinkedIn pages?

Probably not for pages that anyone can open without logging in, according to the Ninth Circuit. That ruling was preliminary, though, and it answers only the access question. The law is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), [18 U.S.C. § 1030](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030). It punishes anyone who intentionally accesses a computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and gets information from a protected computer. A company can sue under it only if the conduct involves one of the factors the statute lists, such as a loss of at least $5,000 in a year.

### What did Van Buren decide?

In [Van Buren v. United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf) (June 3, 2021), the Supreme Court read the CFAA narrowly. A police sergeant had used his own valid login to run a license-plate search for money, against department policy. The Court held 6 to 3 that this did not exceed authorized access. That phrase covers people who enter parts of a computer that are off-limits to them. It does not cover people who misuse data they are allowed to see.

The Court called the test a gates-up-or-down inquiry: a person either can or cannot enter a system, or an area inside it. In footnote 8, it left open whether the test looks only at technical limits or also at limits written into contracts or policies.

### What did the Ninth Circuit decide in hiQ v. LinkedIn?

On April 18, 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld an order that kept LinkedIn from blocking hiQ, a data analytics firm that scraped public profiles. LinkedIn had sent hiQ a cease-and-desist letter in May 2017. The Supreme Court had sent the case back after Van Buren, and in [hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf) the Ninth Circuit said that ruling supported its view.

The court said the CFAA deals with three kinds of computers (Figure 2). Public LinkedIn profiles, open to anyone with an internet connection, fall in the first group. For those, the idea of access without authorization does not fit. The court concluded that it is likely that using publicly available data on a network that permits public access is not access without authorization. It added three limits:

- **It was preliminary.** The court affirmed a preliminary injunction and said it was not settling the dispute for good.
- **It covered public pages only.** The court noted that a public website can also hold areas that need authorization, and entering those without it would break the CFAA.
- **Other claims survive.** The court listed claims that a site owner may still bring against scrapers: trespass to chattels, copyright infringement, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract and breach of privacy.

The injunction did not last. In August 2022 the district court [dissolved it](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.329.0.pdf) after finding that hiQ no longer had an ongoing business.

**Figure 2: The Ninth Circuit's three kinds of computer.** Three rows, one for each kind of computer in the hiQ opinion. First, a computer open to the public, with no gate, such as a public LinkedIn profile; the court said access there is likely not without authorization. Second, a computer that needs a login which you hold, so the gate is up for you; Van Buren left open whether contract limits count. Third, fake accounts or access after a written notice to stop, where the gate is down; Power Ventures found liability and hiQ agreed to it in a settlement.

*The three kinds of computer in the Ninth Circuit's hiQ opinion. The court names public LinkedIn profiles as kind 1; the examples for kinds 2 and 3 are ours. Sources: [hiQ](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf), [Van Buren](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf) and [Power Ventures](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/13-17102.pdf).*

### When does a cease-and-desist letter or a fake account change the answer?

Pages behind a login are a different case. In [Facebook v. Power Ventures](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/13-17102.pdf) (July 12, 2016), Facebook sent a written cease-and-desist letter and blocked Power's IP addresses, and Power kept going. The Ninth Circuit held that access after that notice was without authorization under the CFAA, and that technical workarounds did not excuse it. The same opinion said that breaking a website's terms of use, without more, cannot create CFAA liability. The hiQ court later pointed out that Power Ventures involved password-protected Facebook profiles, while hiQ's pages were open to everyone.

Fake accounts sit on the same side of the line. In its [December 2022 settlement](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.405.0.pdf), hiQ agreed that LinkedIn could establish CFAA liability based on its data collection practices and its direct access to password-protected pages through fake accounts. That is a settlement term, not a court ruling on public pages. LinkedIn's later complaints against other companies, covered below, also describe fake accounts.

### What did the Ninth Circuit say about AI agents in 2026?

On August 4, 2026, the Ninth Circuit decided [Amazon.com Services v. Perplexity AI](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/04/26-1444.pdf). The court vacated a preliminary injunction that had barred Perplexity's browser agent from shopping on Amazon for its users. It held that Amazon was unlikely to show that Perplexity "accessed" Amazon's computers. On the record before it, the user accessed them, with the agent's help. Perplexity's servers received screenshots from the user's browser but did not contact Amazon's servers directly.

The opinion is narrow. It sets no new legal regime for agents and leaves tort claims open. It also says the result does not impair Amazon's ability to regulate access through its terms of service. It was not a LinkedIn case. For how LinkedIn's rules treat agents that run inside your account, read our guide to [LinkedIn MCP servers](https://enrich.chat/blog/linkedin-mcp/).

None of the access rulings decides whether LinkedIn's contract allows scraping, or whether privacy law does. The next two questions cover those.

## What does LinkedIn's User Agreement say about scraping?

LinkedIn's User Agreement bans scraping in plain words. Section 8.2 of the [version effective November 3, 2025](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) says members agree not to do the following, among other things:

- Use software, scripts, robots, crawlers, browser plugins or any other tool to scrape or copy the Services, including profiles and other data.
- Override security features, or bypass access controls or use limits.
- Copy, use, display or distribute information from the Services, directly or through third parties such as data aggregators or brokers, without the content owner's consent.
- Use bots or other unauthorized automated methods to access the Services.
- Create a false identity, or use another person's account, for example by sharing login details or copying cookies.

Section 1.2 says the contract applies to Members and Visitors. Section 3.4 lets LinkedIn restrict, suspend or terminate an account that breaches it. LinkedIn's help page on [prohibited software and extensions](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1341387) says members who use scraping or automation tools risk having their accounts restricted or shut down. The Ninth Circuit's account of the hiQ record says LinkedIn blocked about 95 million automated scraping attempts a day and had restricted over 11 million accounts it suspected of breaking its agreement. That record dates from 2018.

Section 2.5 tells members that others can see, copy and use what they share. hiQ argued that this clashed with the scraping ban. The district court disagreed in its [November 2022 order](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.404.0.pdf): a warning that others may collect public information is not permission to collect it by banned means.

These are LinkedIn's rules, not statutes. Whether a court enforces them against a scraper is the contract question.

## Can a website enforce its terms against scraping of public pages?

Sometimes. Courts have enforced anti-scraping terms against companies that agreed to them, and they have also refused to stretch a site's terms to logged-off scraping. The result turns on the exact wording, on who agreed to the terms, and on the facts.

- **hiQ v. LinkedIn, district court (November 4, 2022).** Judge Chen found that LinkedIn's User Agreement [unambiguously prohibits](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.404.0.pdf) hiQ's scraping and its use of the scraped data. He still denied summary judgment on that claim, because facts were in dispute on hiQ's waiver and estoppel defenses. He did grant LinkedIn summary judgment that hiQ breached the agreement when its contractors created false LinkedIn identities. hiQ contested only breach and damages.
- **The settlement (December 2022).** hiQ agreed to a $500,000 judgment and a permanent injunction. The injunction bars automated access to LinkedIn [whether logged in or not](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.405.0.pdf), without LinkedIn's written permission, and requires hiQ to delete its scraping code and LinkedIn profile data. It binds hiQ and those acting with it, not the public.
- **Meta v. Bright Data (January 23, 2024).** In the same court, Judge Chen [granted Bright Data summary judgment](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00077/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00077-7.pdf) on Meta's breach of contract claims. Bright Data had scraped only public pages while logged off. Meta's terms govern a user's "use" of Facebook and Instagram, and the judge read them as not covering logged-off scraping. He resolved the doubt against Meta, which wrote the terms. That is a reading of Meta's wording, not LinkedIn's.
- **X Corp. v. Bright Data (May 9, 2024).** Judge Alsup [dismissed X's complaint](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698-1.pdf). He held that claims built on scraping and selling public data were preempted by the federal Copyright Act, and that the claims about access to X's systems were too thin. In November 2024 he [let X replead some access-based claims](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698-3.pdf) but refused leave for the scraping-based ones.

The Ninth Circuit's 2026 Amazon opinion adds a reminder: winning against a CFAA claim does not end a contract claim. Figure 3 puts the rulings and regulator statements in order.

**Figure 3: Rulings and regulator statements on scraping, 2016 to 2026.** A timeline of ten events. In July 2016 Facebook v. Power Ventures treated access after a written notice as unauthorized. In June 2021 Van Buren set the gates-up-or-down test. In April 2022 the Ninth Circuit decided hiQ v. LinkedIn, and in December 2022 hiQ and LinkedIn settled. In January 2024 Meta v. Bright Data held Meta's terms did not bar logged-off scraping, and in May 2024 X Corp. v. Bright Data found scraping claims preempted by copyright law. In December 2024 the CNIL fined KASPR, in April 2025 the Dutch authority issued scraping guidance, and in July 2026 the EDPB adopted draft scraping guidelines. In August 2026 the Ninth Circuit decided Amazon v. Perplexity AI.

*Key rulings and regulator statements, with the question each answers. The Dutch and EDPB items are guidance, not law. Sources: the court opinions and regulator pages linked in this guide, listed under Sources.*

## Does privacy law still apply to public LinkedIn data?

Yes. Regulators in Europe and the UK treat a person's name, job title and work contact details as personal data even when the person made them public. Privacy duties then still apply to whoever collects or uses the data. A scraper can pass the access and contract tests and still fail this one.

- **A joint statement of 12 regulators (August 24, 2023).** Twelve data protection authorities said that publicly accessible personal information is still covered by data protection and privacy laws in most jurisdictions. The [Australian regulator publishes the statement](https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/global-expectations-of-social-media-platforms-and-other-sites-to-safeguard-against-unlawful-data-scraping).
- **The CNIL's KASPR decision (December 2024).** France's data protection authority [fined KASPR 240,000 euros](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000). KASPR sold a Chrome extension that showed the professional contact details of people whose LinkedIn profiles a customer visited. LinkedIn lets people choose who sees their contact details. The CNIL found that collecting details from people who had limited them to their first and second-degree connections went beyond what people on a professional network could expect, so the collection was unlawful. It also found breaches on how long data was kept (even for details people left visible to everyone), how late people were told, and how access requests were answered. It had received many complaints from people contacted by organizations that got their details through the extension.
- **The Dutch authority's guidance (April 2025).** The [Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens says](https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/system/files?file=2025-04/Handreiking%20scraping_april%202025.pdf) that scraping almost always collects personal data, so the GDPR almost always applies. Private organizations will probably have to rely on legitimate interest, and they need a legal basis even for information anyone can see, and even if they delete it right after collecting it. Its examples of scraping that can probably never comply include scraping the internet to build profiles of people and sell them on. The guidance says it does not cover copyright or a website's terms.
- **The EDPB's draft guidelines (July 7, 2026).** The European Data Protection Board adopted [Guidelines 03/2026](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2026-07/edpb_guidelines_2020603_webscraping_v1_en_0.pdf) for public consultation. They cover scraping to train generative AI, not sales prospecting. They say the GDPR applies when scraping involves personal data, and that putting data online does not mean a person consented to its scraping.
- **The UK ICO.** The ICO's [business-to-business marketing guidance](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/business-to-business-marketing/) says the UK GDPR applies to business contact details that identify a person. You cannot assume that data in the public domain means agreement to direct marketing. People must get privacy information within one month when their data came from public sources or third parties. Buying or selling a list of business contacts needs a lawful basis. The ICO says the page is under review.

Privacy law does not say whether a site's terms allow access, and the access cases do not say whether you need a lawful basis. For the outreach side, see our guides to [cold email data and sender rules](https://enrich.chat/blog/cold-email/) and [TCPA rules for B2B calls and texts](https://enrich.chat/blog/tcpa-b2b-cold-calling/).

## What has LinkedIn done about companies that scraped it?

In the documents we read, LinkedIn went to court against three data companies: hiQ (by counterclaim), Nubela (the company behind Proxycurl) and ProAPIs. Each matter ended in a settlement or a consent judgment, and the documents in each refer to fake accounts. The allegations are LinkedIn's. They are not findings, except where a court said otherwise.

| Matter | What the documents say | How it ended |
| --- | --- | --- |
| hiQ Labs | LinkedIn's counterclaims alleged breach of the User Agreement and violations of federal and state law. The court found hiQ's contractors made fake identities. | December 2022: [$500,000 and a permanent injunction](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.405.0.pdf), agreed by hiQ |
| Nubela and Proxycurl | The [January 2025 complaint](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.443258/gov.uscourts.cand.443258.1.0.pdf) alleged breach of contract, fraud, a CFAA violation, unfair business practices, trademark misuse and misappropriation, and a network of fake accounts that scraped while logged in. | Proxycurl's founder [announced the shutdown on July 4, 2025](https://nubela.co/blog/goodbye-proxycurl/). LinkedIn [said on July 28, 2025](https://news.linkedin.com/2025/LinkedInWinsLegalBattleToProtectMemberData) it had resolved the case. |
| ProAPIs | The October 2025 complaint alleged contract, fraud, CFAA and other claims, scraping of millions of profile pages and a network of fake accounts. | September 2026: a [final judgment on consent](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457309/gov.uscourts.cand.457309.36.0.pdf). The defendants deny liability, are barred from scraping LinkedIn or using fake accounts, and certified they deleted LinkedIn data. |

The ProAPIs judgment also bars the defendants from selling or passing LinkedIn data to anyone, even for free. Our [Proxycurl alternatives guide](https://enrich.chat/blog/proxycurl-alternative/) covers what the shutdown meant for its customers.

## What should a team do if it needs contact data for people on LinkedIn?

Keep automation away from LinkedIn, and get contact data from sources you can name and date. The rules above point to a short list. None of it is a guarantee, and a lawyer should review your own plan.

1. **Do not run bots, scrapers or browser add-ons on LinkedIn.** Section 8.2 bans them, and LinkedIn says accounts that use them risk restriction or shutdown. That includes agent tools that work inside your session.
2. **Never share a login or copy cookies.** Section 8.2 bars using another person's account, and section 2.2 says not to share your own.
3. **Ask every data vendor, in writing, how it collects data.** Section 8.2 reaches information obtained through data aggregators or brokers. The Dutch authority names reselling scraped profiles as something that can probably never comply with the GDPR. The ICO says buyers and sellers of contact lists need a lawful basis and must tell people.
4. **Record the source and the date for every contact.** The ICO expects privacy information within one month when data comes from third parties. The CNIL faulted KASPR for answering source questions with only a generic reference to public sources.
5. **Answer people who ask where you got their details, and honor objections.** The CNIL ordered KASPR to answer access requests with all available source information, and to tell some people they could object.
6. **Follow the outreach rules separately.** Email, calls and texts have their own laws, linked above.

For the practical side of finding contacts from a profile, see [how to find an email on LinkedIn](https://enrich.chat/blog/find-email-on-linkedin/), [how to get a phone number from LinkedIn](https://enrich.chat/blog/find-phone-number-from-linkedin/) and the [best LinkedIn email finders](https://enrich.chat/blog/best-linkedin-email-finder/).

## How does Enrich.chat handle LinkedIn URLs?

Enrich.chat never logs in to LinkedIn and never uses anyone's LinkedIn account. A LinkedIn URL is only a lookup key. Your agent sends it as text to the API, the same way it would send an email address or a company website.

The agent reads [enrich.chat/agents.md](https://enrich.chat/agents.md) and calls `GET /v1/person?linkedin_url=...&fields=email,mobile`. A found work email comes back with a status of verified, catch_all or unknown. A found mobile comes back with a line type of mobile or unknown. When nothing matches, the response says found is false and the lookup uses 0 credits.

```text
Use www.enrich.chat to enrich this list of LinkedIn URLs with work emails. Do not log in to LinkedIn or open the profiles. Mark rows with no match as not found, and add a column with the date of each lookup.
```

You can try it with no signup: the API gives 10 free lookups a day. A found work email uses 10 credits and a found mobile uses 250. Monthly plans start at $29 for 100,000 credits, with unlimited seats. See [Enrich.chat pricing](https://enrich.chat/pricing/), learn how [AI agents use the API](https://enrich.chat/agents/), or test one profile in the free [LinkedIn email and phone finder](https://enrich.chat/tools/linkedin-email-finder/). The [LinkedIn URL to contact API](https://enrich.chat/api/linkedin-to-contact/) page shows a full response.

This is not legal clearance. A status describes a field. It is not consent, a lawful basis or permission to contact anyone, and you stay responsible for TCPA, CAN-SPAM and GDPR compliance. See our [terms](https://enrich.chat/terms/), and note that anyone can ask to be removed at the [opt-out page](https://enrich.chat/opt-out/).

## Frequently asked questions

### Is scraping LinkedIn illegal?

Not automatically, but not clearly legal either. In [hiQ v. LinkedIn](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf) the Ninth Circuit said using public profiles is likely not unauthorized access under the CFAA, but that was a preliminary ruling. [LinkedIn's User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) still bans scraping, and hiQ ended with a $500,000 consent judgment. EU regulators add privacy duties. This is not legal advice.

### Did hiQ win its case against LinkedIn?

hiQ won an early round but not the case. The Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction for hiQ in 2022. A district court then found that hiQ's contractors breached the User Agreement by creating false identities, and in December 2022 hiQ agreed to a [consent judgment](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.405.0.pdf): $500,000, a permanent injunction, and deletion of its scraping code and LinkedIn profile data.

### Can LinkedIn ban you or sue you for scraping?

It can restrict your account, and it has sued companies. Section 3.4 of the [User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) lets LinkedIn restrict, suspend or terminate accounts that breach it, and its [help page](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1341387) says members who use scraping tools risk restriction or shutdown. LinkedIn also went to court against hiQ, Nubela (Proxycurl) and ProAPIs, as the court documents in this guide show.

### Does GDPR apply to public LinkedIn profiles?

Yes, in the view of the regulators we read. The [Dutch authority](https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/system/files?file=2025-04/Handreiking%20scraping_april%202025.pdf) says the GDPR almost always applies to scraping, even for information anyone can see. The CNIL [fined KASPR 240,000 euros](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000) over LinkedIn contact data. The UK [ICO](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/business-to-business-marketing/) says data in the public domain is not agreement to direct marketing. Public data is not a free pass.

### Is it legal to buy scraped LinkedIn data?

It carries risk under three sources. Section 8.2 of the [User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) bars using information from LinkedIn through data aggregators or brokers without the content owner's consent. The [ICO](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/business-to-business-marketing/) says buying or selling a business contact list needs a lawful basis under UK GDPR. The [Dutch authority](https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/system/files?file=2025-04/Handreiking%20scraping_april%202025.pdf) names reselling scraped profiles as something that can probably never comply. Ask any vendor how it collects data.

### Can an AI agent browse LinkedIn for me?

LinkedIn's rules say no to bots. Section 8.2 of the [User Agreement](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement) bans bots and other unauthorized automated methods, and the [help page](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1341387) warns of account restriction. In [Amazon v. Perplexity AI](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/04/26-1444.pdf) (August 2026) the Ninth Circuit found the user, not the agent vendor, likely accessed Amazon's computers, but it limited that to its record and left site terms in force. See our [LinkedIn MCP guide](https://enrich.chat/blog/linkedin-mcp/).

## Sources

1. [hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 17-16783 (opinion on remand)](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/17-16783.pdf)
2. [Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf)
3. [Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., No. 13-17102](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/12/13-17102.pdf)
4. [Amazon.com Services, LLC v. Perplexity AI, Inc., No. 26-1444](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/04/26-1444.pdf)
5. [hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, order dissolving the preliminary injunction (Dkt. 329)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.329.0.pdf)
6. [hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, order on summary judgment (Dkt. 404)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.404.0.pdf)
7. [hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn, stipulation and consent judgment (Dkt. 405)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.312704/gov.uscourts.cand.312704.405.0.pdf)
8. [Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., order on summary judgment (Dkt. 181)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00077/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00077-7.pdf)
9. [X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., order dismissing complaint (Dkt. 83)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698-1.pdf)
10. [X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., order on second amended complaint (Dkt. 156)](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-03698-3.pdf)
11. [18 U.S. Code § 1030: Fraud and related activity in connection with computers](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030)
12. [User Agreement (effective November 3, 2025)](https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement)
13. [Prohibited software and extensions](https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1341387)
14. [Complaint, LinkedIn Corporation v. Nubela Pte. Ltd., No. 3:25-cv-00828](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.443258/gov.uscourts.cand.443258.1.0.pdf)
15. [Proxycurl Shuts Down. Thank you.](https://nubela.co/blog/goodbye-proxycurl/)
16. [LinkedIn Wins Legal Battle to Protect Member Data](https://news.linkedin.com/2025/LinkedInWinsLegalBattleToProtectMemberData)
17. [Final Judgment on Consent, LinkedIn Corporation v. ProAPIs Inc., No. 5:25-cv-08393](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.457309/gov.uscourts.cand.457309.36.0.pdf)
18. [Data scraping: KASPR fined €240,000](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000)
19. [Handreiking scraping door particulieren en private organisaties](https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/system/files?file=2025-04/Handreiking%20scraping_april%202025.pdf)
20. [Guidelines 03/2026 on web scraping in the context of generative AI, version 1.0 (for public consultation)](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2026-07/edpb_guidelines_2020603_webscraping_v1_en_0.pdf)
21. [Global expectations of social media platforms and other sites to safeguard against unlawful data scraping](https://www.oaic.gov.au/news/media-centre/global-expectations-of-social-media-platforms-and-other-sites-to-safeguard-against-unlawful-data-scraping)
22. [Business-to-business marketing](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/direct-marketing-and-privacy-and-electronic-communications/business-to-business-marketing/)

## Try this prompt

Look up a contact from a LinkedIn URL without logging in

```text
Use www.enrich.chat to get the work email for linkedin.com/in/jane-doe-ops. Do not log in to LinkedIn or open the profile. Show the status of the email and report only what the API returns.
```

## Related

- [LinkedIn MCP servers compared, and a no-login alternative](https://enrich.chat/blog/linkedin-mcp/)
- [Proxycurl alternatives (2026): what to use after the shutdown](https://enrich.chat/blog/proxycurl-alternative/)
- [LinkedIn URL to Email and Mobile API](https://enrich.chat/api/linkedin-to-contact/)