I'm curious how it passes free-association muster: you're not allowed to discriminate on particular tasks, but there's no reason you can't discriminate based on eg, behavior or user-agent or IP address.
It seems very strange to me that the judge would order MS to associate against their will prior to hearing the arguments.
After skimming the document for a bit, hiQ's argument looks really flaky. Especially grasping at straws like "Free Speech". They argue that LinkedIn is like a public mall and denying them access to the mall is denying them "Free Speech"? I don't see how this can be the case if they had no intent to "speak" at all in this place. Their data collection via scraping seems more like people-watching in the mall, if you go along with their analogy.
Indeed, and the court rejected that part of HiQ's argument.
"In light of the potentially sweeping implications discussed above and the lack of any more direct authority, the Court cannot conclude that hiQ has at this juncture raised 'serious questions' that LinkedIn's conduct violates its constitutional rights under the California Constitution."
I'm curious how it passes free-association muster: you're not allowed to discriminate on particular tasks, but there's no reason you can't discriminate based on eg, behavior or user-agent or IP address.
It seems very strange to me that the judge would order MS to associate against their will prior to hearing the arguments.