A California federal judge on 22 September 2026 entered a consent judgment that bars ProAPIs and its joint operator Netswift from mass‑scraping LinkedIn profiles, orders deletion of data already harvested and prohibits the use of fake accounts.
Judgment details
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California required the two firms to:
- Cease all mass scraping of LinkedIn user data.
- Stop selling or transferring any scraped data.
- No longer access LinkedIn through bogus accounts.
- Delete any data that has already been scraped.
The order was entered as a consent judgment, meaning the parties agreed to the terms without a contested trial.
Background and lawsuit
LinkedIn first sued ProAPIs and Netswift in approximately October 2025, alleging that the companies operated a massive network of bogus accounts – “numbering in the millions” – that scraped LinkedIn profiles on a continuous basis. The lawsuit framed the activity as a systematic violation of LinkedIn’s terms and a threat to user privacy.
After months of litigation, the parties reached the September 2026 settlement that the court now formalised. The judgment does not disclose any monetary penalties; its focus is on injunctive relief to stop the ongoing data‑harvesting practices.
LinkedIn’s response
Sarah Wight, who heads litigation and enforcement for LinkedIn, posted on the platform that the outcome was “an important triumph.” The statement, published on LinkedIn’s official channel, underscored the company’s view that the judgment protects members’ profile data from unauthorised bulk collection.
Wight’s comment was quoted by The Record, which reported that the agreement also obliges the firms to stop selling and transferring the data, cease the use of fake accounts and delete the scraped material.
Implications for data‑scraping enforcement
The judgment marks a concrete legal win for LinkedIn and sets a precedent for how U.S. courts may handle large‑scale data‑scraping disputes. By securing a court‑ordered injunction rather than a monetary award, LinkedIn demonstrates that injunctive relief can be an effective tool against firms that rely on automated harvesting of user information.
Legal analysts note that the consent judgment could signal to other platforms that they can pursue similar remedies when faced with systematic scraping. The requirement to delete already‑collected data adds a practical enforcement dimension that goes beyond merely stopping future activity.
What remains unclear is whether the judgment will be monitored for compliance and what penalties might follow if ProAPIs or Netswift violate the terms. The court’s order does not specify a reporting mechanism, and LinkedIn has not disclosed any follow‑up audit plan.
What’s next?
LinkedIn’s next steps are likely to involve monitoring the defendants’ compliance and possibly seeking additional court action if the injunction is breached. For the broader tech industry, the case highlights the growing scrutiny of data‑scraping practices and the willingness of large platforms to use the courts to protect user data.
Stakeholders—including advertisers, data‑analytics firms and privacy advocates—will be watching how the injunction is enforced and whether it prompts changes to how third‑party services access public profile information on professional networks.