No one likes waiting at the DMV. I get it. I’m sympathetic.

So going online and handling your business is easy and you can skip waiting. But, what if you info is getting sent out for other purposes? By LinkedIn of all places????

So, this case hurts.

LinkedIn offers a product for its customers called Insight Tags. Per the LinkedIn website, these Insight Tags lets customers “Learn more about your audience, on and off LinkedIn”.

In Jackson v. LinkedIn Corporation, 2024 WL 3823806 (Cal. N.D, Aug 13, 2024), LinkedIn moved to dismiss a case for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff, Jacqueline Jackson, realized that LinkedIn’s Insight Tags were tracking her usage of the California DMV’s website when she went to renew her disability placard in 2023. Jackson alleged that LinkedIn’s conduct violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).

LinkedIn claimed that Jackson’s failure to include the DMV as a necessary party and therefore the case should be dismissed. The Court disagreed stating “there is no obvious reason why Jackson could not recover damages sufficient to compensate for the injuries resulting from the use of LinkedIn’s own technology from LinkedIn alone.” Since Jackson was not claiming the DMV’s use was a privacy violation, then she did not need to include them in the suite.

LinkedIn’s defense to the CIPA claims was based on the contention that LinkedIn did not eavesdrop, but was used by the DMV to “record” the interactions of Jackson. Therefore, LinkedIn was “merely the third-party vendor of a recording service”.

However, the Court found that since LinkedIn was receiving the data and using it for its own marketing purposes, the Insight Tags were not a mere recording device. 

Eagle-eyed CIPAWorld readers are seeing where this is going to end up…

LinkedIn also argued that Jackson didn’t plead that LinkedIn “used” her data in anyway. And the Court agreed. However, this Pyrrhic victory was for naught. Because under CIPA, Jackson’s allegations were sufficient to allege that LinkedIn had, at a minimum, “read” or “learned” the data that was transmitted. And the “reading” or “learning” is sufficient to state a claim under CIPA. LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss was denied. Again, as we continue to see in CIPAWorld, if a marketing partner is telling you that you can “learn more about your audience” whether