Insights
Publications

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

January 29, 2024 Articles

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and online data collection. In the ruling available here, Judge Edward Chen granted summary judgment in favor of Bright Data, a company that provides scraping infrastructure and data scraped from publicly available sources, including Meta’s social media platforms. The opinion builds on the precedent set by Judge Chen in the landmark hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. cases, filed by Farella Braun + Martel, and which led to a significant reinterpretation of the breadth of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) as applied to scraping.[1]

In the Bright Data case, both parties sought early summary judgment on the issue of whether Bright Data’s activities violated Meta’s terms of service, which prohibit all users from “access[ing] or collect[ing] data from” Meta’s platforms “using automated means,” or from assisting others in doing so.

Meta argued that its terms prohibited users such as Bright Data from engaging in both logged-on and logged-off scraping, and that “any user that visits Facebook uses Facebooks’ physical infrastructure by sending a request to Meta’s servers.” See Meta v. Bright Data, MSJ Op. at *15 (emphasis in original). In response, Bright Data argued that Meta’s terms apply only to data that is behind the password wall and limit user activity only when the user is logged in. 

The court sided with Bright Data and granted its summary judgment motion on Meta’s breach of contract claim. The court thoroughly analyzed Meta’s terms of service, applying traditional principles of contract interpretation, to conclude that the terms explicitly govern “your use” of Meta’s products and that “Bright Data did not ‘use’ Facebook and Instagram when it engaged in public logged-off scraping.” Meta v. Bright Data, MSJ Op. at *11. The court found this interpretation consistent with the overall language and purpose of the user provisions of the terms, because the purpose of the relevant sections of the terms was “to prevent account holders who have privileges and access to Meta services from abusing their access to such services.” Id., at *15. Thus, “[w]hen an entity does not utilize that access to, e.g., scrape public data, it does not abuse that access; it stands in the same shoes as a visitor to whom the Terms cannot apply as a matter of basic contract law.” Id. As a result, Bright Data did not breach any contract with Meta by engaging in logged-off scraping of public data nor by the sale of such public data. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Bright Data and denied the same for Meta. Only Meta’s claim for tortious interference with contract remains in the suit.

There are other important aspects of the ruling (including the court’s rejection of a “survival clause” in the terms of service), but its ruling regarding what “use” of a social media platform means could have significant repercussions for scraping companies. Meta has relied on its interpretation of the terms of service in cease and desist letters and litigation for years to attempt to dissuade scraping companies from collecting public data from Meta’s platforms. If this ruling stands (and it seems likely that Meta will appeal), it will make scraping data that is publicly available on social media platforms significantly less risky.

Farella Braun + Martel has a robust practice representing scraping companies in litigation and in counseling them on the risks associated with online data collection.


[1] See hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 273 F.Supp.3d 1099 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“hiQ I”), aff’d, 31 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022); hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 639 F.Supp.3d 944 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“hiQ II”).

Firm Highlights

Publication

Wire Fraud Victims Have New Reporting Factors After Ciminelli

Originally published by  Bloomberg Law . Courts around the country have seen an influx of challenges to indictments and convictions since the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in  Ciminelli v. United States  last May...

Read More
News

Farella Wins Complete Defense Ruling at Trial for Smart Meter Technology Company

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel secured a complete defense victory for a smart meter technology company following a two-week bench trial in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California...

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More
Publication

Ensuring Your Website Complies With the ADA

In today’s digital age, having an online presence is crucial for businesses, including wineries, breweries, and other beverage companies. Accordingly, it’s essential to ensure that your beverage website meets federal standards for accessibility to avoid...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
Publication

Top 5 Privacy Cases To Watch, From Chatbots to Geolocation

Litigation — and threats of litigation — related to privacy law violations have been on the rise recently. While some judges have pushed back on the theories set forth by plaintiffs, new privacy lawsuits...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
Publication

Compelling Employees to Arbitration Suddenly Has Less of an Upside

On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs Inc., as to whether employees still have standing to sue for "non-individual" PAGA claims when they have been...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law FirmsĀ® Rankings

Read More