LinkedIn : Unwanted Emails Lawsuit Arash Koushkebaghi CSC 300 Dr. Clark Turner October 19, 2015 Abstract In September 2015, LinkedIn came under criticism for one of their email features. A class action lawsuit had been filed over unwanted emails from LinkedIn to their users and LinkedIn agreed to settle. The complaint stems from the fact that the two additional emails that LinkedIn would send to their member’s contacts were mailed without consent of the members [5]. Do social networking sites have the right to access your email contacts without your consent in order to promote their product? It is a social issue just as much it is a moral one. This essay deals with the privacy of citizens and larger corporations and after considering the SE code of ethics, it is clear that the lawsuit was justified. 1 Contents 1 Known Facts 2 2 Research Question 2 3 Extant Arguments 3 3.1 Argument Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1.1 social network main purpose is communication. . . . . 3 3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s law does not apply” . . . . . 3 3.2 Argument Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2.1 Access to individual’s information without their consent 3 3.2.2 Endorsement without pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Analysis 3 4.1 Why is SE code applicable to this problem? . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1.1 Not knowingly using software that is obtained or re- tained either illegally or unethically. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1.2 Use the property of a client or employer only in ways properly authorized, and with the client’s or employer’s knowledge and consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1.3 Keep private any confidential information gained in their professional work, where such confidentiality is consistent with the public interest and consistent with the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Conclusion 4 1 1 Known Facts The LinkedIn ”Add Connection” fea- ture was introduced as a quick and efficient way for users to gain ”en- dorsements” through the contacts in their email address book. LinkedIn sent an ”endorsements email” to con- tacts in a user’s email who have not signed up for the site.[7] Doing this was supposed to be beneficial for all three parties. [4] For LinkedIn, they can poten- tially gain thousands of new users just through an email service, for the LinkedIn user, they can gain more people in their network that can en- dorse their specific skillset, and for the non-LinkedIn user they can po- tentially become members of the best professional social networking site.[2] The problem with this feature was that in addition to the first email, LinkedIn then sent two addi- tional emails to the user’s contacts that made no response to the initial email. In the beginning, the law- suit claimed that no LinkedIn user had given the company access to their email contacts [2]. While this claim was thrown out by a judge in the Dis- trict Court of Ca ...

1. LinkedIn : Unwanted Emails Lawsuit
Arash Koushkebaghi
CSC 300
Dr. Clark Turner
October 19, 2015
Abstract
In September 2015, LinkedIn came under criticism for one of
their
email features. A class action lawsuit had been filed over
unwanted
emails from LinkedIn to their users and LinkedIn agreed to
settle.
The complaint stems from the fact that the two additional
emails that
LinkedIn would send to their member’s contacts were mailed
without
consent of the members [5]. Do social networking sites have the
right
to access your email contacts without your consent in order to
promote
their product? It is a social issue just as much it is a moral one.
This
essay deals with the privacy of citizens and larger corporations
and
after considering the SE code of ethics, it is clear that the
lawsuit was
justified.

2. 1
Contents
1 Known Facts 2
2 Research Question 2
3 Extant Arguments 3
3.1 Argument Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 social network main purpose is communication. . . . . 3
3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s law does not apply” . . . . . 3
3.2 Argument Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.1 Access to individual’s information without their consent 3
3.2.2 Endorsement without pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Analysis 3
4.1 Why is SE code applicable to this problem? . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1.1 Not knowingly using software that is obtained or re-
tained either illegally or unethically. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2 Use the property of a client or employer only in ways
properly authorized, and with the client’s or employer’s
knowledge and consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.3 Keep private any confidential information gained in
their professional work, where such confidentiality is
consistent with the public interest and consistent with
the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. 5 Conclusion 4
1
1 Known Facts
The LinkedIn ”Add Connection” fea-
ture was introduced as a quick and
efficient way for users to gain ”en-
dorsements” through the contacts in
their email address book. LinkedIn
sent an ”endorsements email” to con-
tacts in a user’s email who have not
signed up for the site.[7] Doing this
was supposed to be beneficial for all
three parties. [4]
For LinkedIn, they can poten-
tially gain thousands of new users
just through an email service, for the
LinkedIn user, they can gain more
people in their network that can en-
dorse their specific skillset, and for
the non-LinkedIn user they can po-
tentially become members of the best
professional social networking site.[2]
The problem with this feature
was that in addition to the first
email, LinkedIn then sent two addi-
tional emails to the user’s contacts
that made no response to the initial
email. In the beginning, the law-
suit claimed that no LinkedIn user

4. had given the company access to their
email contacts [2]. While this claim
was thrown out by a judge in the Dis-
trict Court of California, the judge
did find that LinkedIn had no right
to send any additional emails.[5]
The judge said the company’s
practice of then sending reminder
messages to contacts who hadn’t re-
sponded was grounds for the lawsuit
to go forward [2].LinkedIn’s sending
repeated e-mails could impair repu-
tations by allowing contacts to think
the network member is “unable to
take the hint” that they don’t want
to join the website. In addition,
LinkedIn may have violated Califor-
nia’s right of publicity, which pro-
tects against the appropriation of
someone’s name or likeness, without
their consent, for commercial pur-
poses [7].Although LinkedIn claims
no wrongdoing, they agreed to settle
the lawsuit for 13 million Dollars.[5]
2 Research Question
Should LinkedIn have access to their
user’s email contacts for the purposes
of increasing their user base or pro-
moting their product?
Many distinct social networking
websites offer better service by ac-

5. cessing their client’s basic email in-
formation only with client’s con-
sent. ”Add Connection” feature pro-
vided by LinkedIn, presents thought-
provoking points to other social net-
working companies of whether it is
ethical to access their client’s email
to gain more information about their
client’s likeness, without their con-
sent even though this might be bene-
ficial for the company, the users and
also non-users[5].
2
3 Extant Arguments
3.1 Argument Affirma-
tive
3.1.1 social network main pur-
pose is communication.
LinkedIn’s representatives have pro-
posed that the company has a right to
free speech when software engineers
are in the process of sending the mul-
tiple follow up emails.This goes along
with the theory that the purpose of
all social networks is to allow people
to communicate with each other.
3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s
law does not apply”

6. The company adds that California’s
law regulating endorsements doesn’t
apply if it would conflict with free-
speech protections that guarantee
people’s right to discuss matters of
public concern.[7] “Reminder emails
concern matters of public interest
that outweigh plaintiffs’ asserted eco-
nomic interests, and therefore consti-
tute activity protected by the First
Amendment” [1].
3.2 Argument Negative
3.2.1 Access to individual’s in-
formation without their
consent
Not only do new users have the po-
tential of inadvertently sending out
hundreds of emails to everyone in
their contact list (and triggering the
two follow up emails). Even after
someone unsubscribes from the “Add
Connection” feature, LinkedIn still
has access of the user’s email informa-
tion to send future emails promoting
other products and services.
3.2.2 Endorsement without
pay
LinkedIn is using individual’s like-
nesses and emails to push their own
products without payment. [4]

7. 4 Analysis
4.1 Why is SE code ap-
plicable to this prob-
lem?
Going by the principles in the SE
code alone it is evident that the
LinkedIn question aligns with the
SE Code. These principles ensure
that companies who have great ca-
pabilities to harm individuals are
obligated to use their efforts for
3
good[6].Principle 2 deals with the re-
lationship between the Client and the
Employer[3]. In Principles 2.02, 2.03
and 2.05 are directly related.These
objectives represent the ethical rela-
tionship that LinkedIn should have
followed, to maintain an ideal rela-
tionship with clients[3] .
4.1.1 Not knowingly using soft-
ware that is obtained or
retained either illegally
or unethically.
In this case, the email information
LinkedIn obtained from their clients
was retrieved unethically and it was

8. still used to send emails[3].
4.1.2 Use the property of a
client or employer only
in ways properly au-
thorized, and with the
client’s or employer’s
knowledge and consent.
LinkedIn users claim that they never
authorized the website to access
their email contacts for referrals and
recommendations[3].
4.1.3 Keep private any con-
fidential information
gained in their profes-
sional work, where such
confidentiality is con-
sistent with the public
interest and consistent
with the law.
The information that LinkedIn ob-
tained was not kept private and used
to send future emails promoting other
products[3].
5 Conclusion
No, it was not ethical for LinkedIn
to access their user’s email contacts
and the lawsuit against LinkedIn was
completely justified[3]. They lacked
the permission from their users to ac-
cess their email contacts and were

9. in violation of Principle 2 in the SE
code[3].
4
References
[1] W. Davis. Linkedin argues it has free speech right to email
users’ friends,
march 2014. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/
234555/linkedin-argues-it-has-free-speech-right-to-email.
html.
This article details the arguments LinkedIn use in their lawsuit.
[2] J D’onfro. Linkedin might have to pay you money for
spamming your
email contacts., October 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/
linkedin-settles-class-action-lawsuit-2015-10.
Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.
[3] Association for computing Machinery. Software engineering
code of ethics
and professional practice, 2015. http://www.acm.org/about/se-
code.
[4] V. Goel. Users sue linkedin. retrieved from new york times.,
October 2013. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/
users-sue-linkedin-over-harvesting-of-e-mail-addresses/.
This article discusses the initial lawsuit that was brought
against LinkedIn

10. in 2013. The plaintiffs claimed that LinkedIn hacked their
emails.
[5] J. Kastrenakes. Linkedin agrees to settle unwanted email
law-
suit., October 2015.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9444067/
linkedin-email-lawsuit-settlement-add-connections.
Details the settlement that LinkedIn reached in their lawsuit.
[6] Elaine Lau. The ethics of data extraction through illegal
means, illus-
trated by the case of aaron swartz, 2013.
[7] J. Rosenblatt. Linkedin ordered to face customer e-mail con-
tacts lawsuit. retrieved from bloomberg business, June 2013.
https:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-13/
linkedin-ordered-to-face-customer-e-mail-contacts-lawsuit.
Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.
5
LinkedIn : Unwanted Emails Lawsuit
Arash Koushkebaghi
CSC 300
Dr. Clark Turner
October 19, 2015

11. Abstract
In September 2015, LinkedIn came under criticism for one of
their
email features. A class action lawsuit had been filed over
unwanted
emails from LinkedIn to their users and LinkedIn agreed to
settle.
The complaint stems from the fact that the two additional
emails that
LinkedIn would send to their member’s contacts were mailed
without
consent of the members [5]. Do social networking sites have the
right
to access your email contacts without your consent in order to
promote
their product? It is a social issue just as much it is a moral one.
This
essay deals with the privacy of citizens and larger corporations
and
after considering the SE code of ethics, it is clear that the
lawsuit was
justified.
1
Contents
1 Known Facts 2
2 Research Question 2
3 Extant Arguments 3

12. 3.1 Argument Affirmative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1 social network main purpose is communication. . . . . 3
3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s law does not apply” . . . . . 3
3.2 Argument Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2.1 Access to individual’s information without their consent 3
3.2.2 Endorsement without pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Analysis 3
4.1 Why is SE code applicable to this problem? . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1.1 Not knowingly using software that is obtained or re-
tained either illegally or unethically. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.2 Use the property of a client or employer only in ways
properly authorized, and with the client’s or employer’s
knowledge and consent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.3 Keep private any confidential information gained in
their professional work, where such confidentiality is
consistent with the public interest and consistent with
the law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5 Conclusion 4
1
1 Known Facts
The LinkedIn ”Add Connection” fea-
ture was introduced as a quick and
efficient way for users to gain ”en-
dorsements” through the contacts in

13. their email address book. LinkedIn
sent an ”endorsements email” to con-
tacts in a user’s email who have not
signed up for the site.[7] Doing this
was supposed to be beneficial for all
three parties. [4]
For LinkedIn, they can poten-
tially gain thousands of new users
just through an email service, for the
LinkedIn user, they can gain more
people in their network that can en-
dorse their specific skillset, and for
the non-LinkedIn user they can po-
tentially become members of the best
professional social networking site.[2]
The problem with this feature
was that in addition to the first
email, LinkedIn then sent two addi-
tional emails to the user’s contacts
that made no response to the initial
email. In the beginning, the law-
suit claimed that no LinkedIn user
had given the company access to their
email contacts [2]. While this claim
was thrown out by a judge in the Dis-
trict Court of California, the judge
did find that LinkedIn had no right
to send any additional emails.[5]
The judge said the company’s
practice of then sending reminder
messages to contacts who hadn’t re-
sponded was grounds for the lawsuit

14. to go forward [2].LinkedIn’s sending
repeated e-mails could impair repu-
tations by allowing contacts to think
the network member is “unable to
take the hint” that they don’t want
to join the website. In addition,
LinkedIn may have violated Califor-
nia’s right of publicity, which pro-
tects against the appropriation of
someone’s name or likeness, without
their consent, for commercial pur-
poses [7].Although LinkedIn claims
no wrongdoing, they agreed to settle
the lawsuit for 13 million Dollars.[5]
2 Research Question
Should LinkedIn have access to their
user’s email contacts for the purposes
of increasing their user base or pro-
moting their product?
Many distinct social networking
websites offer better service by ac-
cessing their client’s basic email in-
formation only with client’s con-
sent. ”Add Connection” feature pro-
vided by LinkedIn, presents thought-
provoking points to other social net-
working companies of whether it is
ethical to access their client’s email
to gain more information about their
client’s likeness, without their con-
sent even though this might be bene-
ficial for the company, the users and
also non-users[5].

15. 2
3 Extant Arguments
3.1 Argument Affirma-
tive
3.1.1 social network main pur-
pose is communication.
LinkedIn’s representatives have pro-
posed that the company has a right to
free speech when software engineers
are in the process of sending the mul-
tiple follow up emails.This goes along
with the theory that the purpose of
all social networks is to allow people
to communicate with each other.
3.1.2 LinkedIn : ”California’s
law does not apply”
The company adds that California’s
law regulating endorsements doesn’t
apply if it would conflict with free-
speech protections that guarantee
people’s right to discuss matters of
public concern.[7] “Reminder emails
concern matters of public interest
that outweigh plaintiffs’ asserted eco-
nomic interests, and therefore consti-
tute activity protected by the First
Amendment” [1].

16. 3.2 Argument Negative
3.2.1 Access to individual’s in-
formation without their
consent
Not only do new users have the po-
tential of inadvertently sending out
hundreds of emails to everyone in
their contact list (and triggering the
two follow up emails). Even after
someone unsubscribes from the “Add
Connection” feature, LinkedIn still
has access of the user’s email informa-
tion to send future emails promoting
other products and services.
3.2.2 Endorsement without
pay
LinkedIn is using individual’s like-
nesses and emails to push their own
products without payment. [4]
4 Analysis
4.1 Why is SE code ap-
plicable to this prob-
lem?
Going by the principles in the SE
code alone it is evident that the
LinkedIn question aligns with the
SE Code. These principles ensure
that companies who have great ca-

17. pabilities to harm individuals are
obligated to use their efforts for
3
good[6].Principle 2 deals with the re-
lationship between the Client and the
Employer[3]. In Principles 2.02, 2.03
and 2.05 are directly related.These
objectives represent the ethical rela-
tionship that LinkedIn should have
followed, to maintain an ideal rela-
tionship with clients[3] .
4.1.1 Not knowingly using soft-
ware that is obtained or
retained either illegally
or unethically.
In this case, the email information
LinkedIn obtained from their clients
was retrieved unethically and it was
still used to send emails[3].
4.1.2 Use the property of a
client or employer only
in ways properly au-
thorized, and with the
client’s or employer’s
knowledge and consent.
LinkedIn users claim that they never
authorized the website to access
their email contacts for referrals and

18. recommendations[3].
4.1.3 Keep private any con-
fidential information
gained in their profes-
sional work, where such
confidentiality is con-
sistent with the public
interest and consistent
with the law.
The information that LinkedIn ob-
tained was not kept private and used
to send future emails promoting other
products[3].
5 Conclusion
No, it was not ethical for LinkedIn
to access their user’s email contacts
and the lawsuit against LinkedIn was
completely justified[3]. They lacked
the permission from their users to ac-
cess their email contacts and were
in violation of Principle 2 in the SE
code[3].
4
References
[1] W. Davis. Linkedin argues it has free speech right to email
users’ friends,
march 2014. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/

19. 234555/linkedin-argues-it-has-free-speech-right-to-email.
html.
This article details the arguments LinkedIn use in their lawsuit.
[2] J D’onfro. Linkedin might have to pay you money for
spamming your
email contacts., October 2015. http://www.businessinsider.com/
linkedin-settles-class-action-lawsuit-2015-10.
Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.
[3] Association for computing Machinery. Software engineering
code of ethics
and professional practice, 2015. http://www.acm.org/about/se-
code.
[4] V. Goel. Users sue linkedin. retrieved from new york times.,
October 2013. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/
users-sue-linkedin-over-harvesting-of-e-mail-addresses/.
This article discusses the initial lawsuit that was brought
against LinkedIn
in 2013. The plaintiffs claimed that LinkedIn hacked their
emails.
[5] J. Kastrenakes. Linkedin agrees to settle unwanted email
law-
suit., October 2015.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/2/9444067/
linkedin-email-lawsuit-settlement-add-connections.
Details the settlement that LinkedIn reached in their lawsuit.
[6] Elaine Lau. The ethics of data extraction through illegal

20. means, illus-
trated by the case of aaron swartz, 2013.
[7] J. Rosenblatt. Linkedin ordered to face customer e-mail con-
tacts lawsuit. retrieved from bloomberg business, June 2013.
https:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-13/
linkedin-ordered-to-face-customer-e-mail-contacts-lawsuit.
Another article that goes over the facts in the LinkedIn lawsuit.
5