Judge advances data privacy class action against LinkedIn

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge on Monday declined to dismiss privacy claims against employment social media giant LinkedIn, finding the plaintiffs had sufficiently claimed that personal data was shared via video-content platforms without their permission.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts denied the motion to dismiss lead plaintiff Courtney Cole’s claims that LinkedIn knowingly used Facebook Tracking Pixel through a piece of embedded code and transmitted users’ personal information to third parties, such as Facebook and Adobe, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

“Cole asserts that the combination of URL and Facebook ID data that LinkedIn Learning transmits via the Pixel permits the recipient of such data ‘to see who watched what video,’” Pitts wrote, adding later: “In sum, Cole has plausibly alleged that LinkedIn disclosed her personally identifiable information by transmitting the URLs of videos Cole watched on LinkedIn Learning ‘along with’ her Facebook ID, which together would ‘readily permit an ordinary person to identify [Cole]’s video-watching behavior.'"

Cole subscribed to LinkedIn Learning and claims the platform contained third-party Facebook cookies and code from Facebook Tracking Pixel which transmitted data based on what videos she watched through the Learning program, including a video course titled “Nano Tips for Negotiating Your Salary with Sho Dewan.”

Pitts, a Joe Biden appointee, found LinkedIn’s argument that Cole’s viewing history was paired with “voluminous other information and that an ordinary person would therefore have been unable to sift through the morass of data” was not reason enough to dismiss the lawsuit.

He noted the Ninth Circuit has previously held the VPPA focuses on the content of the information, such as if a person’s video-watching history is identifiable to an individual, not the way the information is disclosed.

“LinkedIn’s argument relies on facts not alleged in the complaint, which does not discuss the other data disclosed alongside Cole’s personally identifiable information,” Pitts wrote. “This argument thus raises factual disputes better resolved on a motion for summary judgment.”

Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment by press time.