LinkedIn wins dismissal of 'BrowserGate' lawsuits over scanning users' Chrome extensions

California residents Nicholas Farrell and Jeff Ganan separately filed class actions against LinkedIn in April, seeking to represent themselves and other LinkedIn users over the company's practice of scanning their browser extensions.

Judge Chhabria granted LinkedIn's motion to dismiss both cases, ruling that neither plaintiff adequately alleged that they had standing to sue. Specifically, neither asserted that they "had browser extensions installed that conveyed private information to LinkedIn," the judge wrote.

While Chhabria gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints, he was skeptical they could build a plausible case. "Given LinkedIn's further arguments that users voluntarily download browser extensions, which by their nature intentionally expose data to websites, it seems unlikely that the plaintiffs will ever be able to allege a privacy violation, much less prevail at the end of the day," he wrote.

Ganan's attorney, J.R. Howell, said he is evaluating whether to bring the claims in a California state court — which has different requirements on standing — or to appeal the US district court ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Why This Matters

The ruling illustrates how difficult it is for users to sue tech companies over data collection when they cannot point to a specific, concrete injury.
It may push privacy plaintiffs toward state courts, which typically have more lenient standing rules than federal courts.
The outcome could influence how other platforms treat data exposed by browser extensions, where consent is often implicit in the act of installing the extension.

Background

Browser extensions are designed to interact with websites a user visits, and by their nature they expose certain data to those sites. The lawsuits, dubbed "BrowserGate," centered on whether LinkedIn's scanning of installed extensions went beyond what users reasonably consented to. Under US federal law, plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete, particularized injury to establish standing — a threshold that has frequently tripped up privacy class actions.

Key Perspectives

LinkedIn: Argued that users voluntarily download browser extensions that intentionally expose data to websites, meaning no privacy violation occurred. Plaintiffs: Maintained that LinkedIn's scanning practice violated user privacy, and their attorney is now weighing a state-court refiling or an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Chhabria: Doubted the plaintiffs can ever allege a privacy violation, noting their failure to identify any extension that actually conveyed private information to LinkedIn.

What to Watch

Whether Farrell and Ganan amend their complaints within the court's timeframe and how they attempt to establish standing.
Howell's decision on venue: a California state court refiling versus an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Whether similar claims emerge in other jurisdictions, either in federal or state court.

ZOTPAPER