The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, act as legal, financial or credit advice; instead, it is for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not be current. This website may contain links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; we do not recommend or endorse the contents of any third-party sites. Readers of this website should contact their attorney, accountant or credit counselor to obtain advice with respect to their particular situation. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or not act on the basis of information on this site. Always seek personal legal, financial or credit advice for your relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney or advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client or fiduciary relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website owner, authors, contributors, contributing firms, or their respective employers.
Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them. Compensation is not a factor in the substantive evaluation of any product.
LinkedIn faces accusations of fraud in a class-action lawsuit stemming from a data breach its systems suffered almost two years ago. In June 2012, hackers infiltrated the professional networking site and posted passwords of 6.5 million LinkedIn members, and the plaintiff in the suit has claimed the site misrepresented its security measures.
The primary plaintiff, Khalilah Wright, argues that she would have perceived her premium LinkedIn account, which she opened in 2010, as less valuable, had she known about the company’s “lax security practices,” according to court documents. On March 28, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila denied LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the claim. Previously, the court had dismissed plaintiffs’ claims that the breach caused them financial loss or future harm.
After that dismissal last year, Wright amended her complaint, but Davila threw out her claims of unfair competition and breach of contract. Still, the fraud claim stands.
“Plaintiff alleges that the representation in the Privacy Policy is likely to deceive the public because consumers would believe that LinkedIn used a more effective method of securing its users’ data than it actually did,” Davila wrote.
Wright argued that the industry standard was to use two-layered encryption but LinkedIn used only one at the time of the breach. (It has added a second since then.)
Wright is saying she wouldn’t have upgraded to a premium account (or would have argued to pay less for it) had she known this, but the privacy policy stated users’ information “will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology.”
LinkedIn argued that the privacy policy is the same for free and premium accounts, so it wouldn’t incentivize a user to upgrade.
Whether LinkedIn will be held liable for allegedly misrepresenting its security practices will be determined later. A case management conference is scheduled for June 6.
Image: iStock
April 11, 2023
Uncategorized
September 13, 2021
Uncategorized
August 4, 2021
Uncategorized