“Opting out means that LinkedIn and its affiliates won’t use your personal data or content on LinkedIn to train models going forward, but does not affect training that has already taken place.”

💡 LinkedIn admits user data is permanently embedded in AI models and cannot be removed even if users opt out now.

“The artificial intelligence models that LinkedIn uses to power generative AI features may be trained by LinkedIn or another provider.”

💡 LinkedIn admits sharing user data beyond Microsoft affiliates to unidentified third party providers for AI training.

“Recipient will not disclose Confidential Information to any third party except (1) to Affiliates or employees, students, consultants, and agents who (i) have a need to know it in order to carry out their obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) are under written confidentiality and non-use obligations at least as restrictive as those stated in this LSA or (2) as required by law.”

💡 LinkedIn’s Premium Subscription Agreement explicitly prohibited the data sharing practices alleged in the complaint.

“Process Customer Personal Data (i) only for the purpose of providing, supporting and improving LinkedIn’s services (including to provide insights and other reporting), using appropriate technical and organizational security measures; and (ii) in compliance with the instructions received from Customer. LinkedIn will not use or Process the Customer Personal Data for any other purpose.”

💡 LinkedIn’s Data Protection Agreement limited data use to improving LinkedIn services, not training third party AI models.

“LinkedIn can modify this Privacy Policy, and if we make material changes to it, we will provide notice through our Services, or by other means, to provide you the opportunity to review the changes before they become effective. If you object to any changes, you may close your account.”

💡 LinkedIn violated its own policy by sharing data first and only updating terms after media exposed the practice.

“The previous version of the FAQ stated: Where LinkedIn trains generative AI models, we seek to minimize personal data in the data sets used to train the models, including by using privacy enhancing technologies to redact or remove personal data from the training dataset. On or around October 1, 2024, LinkedIn removed the words including by using privacy enhancing technologies to redact or remove personal data from the training dataset.”

💡 LinkedIn deleted specific privacy commitments after being caught rather than fulfilling the promises it made to users.

“It may be unfair or deceptive for a company to adopt more permissive data practices, for example, to start sharing consumers’ data with third parties or using that data for AI training, and to only inform consumers of this change through a surreptitious, retroactive amendment to its terms of service or privacy policy.”

💡 The FTC specifically warned against exactly what LinkedIn allegedly did, suggesting the conduct violates unfair trade practice standards.

“Given its role as a professional social media network, these communications include incredibly sensitive and potentially life-altering information about employment, intellectual property, compensation, and other personal matters.”

💡 LinkedIn users shared highly confidential professional information expecting privacy protections they paid for.

“The extensive reach of Microsoft’s ecosystem makes disclosures to entities within its corporate structure particularly problematic. Private data could surface across Microsoft’s AI product suite, such as confidential job searches appearing in Word suggestions, business strategies in Teams chat completions, or salary discussions in Microsoft 365 features.”

💡 User data shared with Microsoft could emerge in multiple products creating ongoing privacy breach risks.

“The contents of Plaintiff’s InMail messages included discussions about potential financing for startups, job-seeking efforts, and attempts to reconnect with former colleagues. The exposure of such information could jeopardize Plaintiff’s professional relationships, compromise business opportunities, and negatively impact his career prospects.”

💡 Real people face tangible professional and financial harm when confidential communications are exposed.

“LinkedIn violated the SCA when it knowingly disclosed the contents of Plaintiff and the Class Members’ private InMail messages to third-party entities. More specifically, LinkedIn violated § 2702(a)(1) by disclosing unopened InMail messages to third-party entities in its capacity as an ECS provider. Defendant also violated § 2702(a)(2) by disclosing previously opened InMail messages that were then held on its servers for storage purposes to third-party entities in its capacity as an RCS provider.”

💡 LinkedIn violated federal law protecting electronic communications whether messages were opened or still in storage.

“Plaintiff and the Class members suffered actual damages, in the form of overpayment for LinkedIn Premium subscriptions that did not include the promised data privacy protections for their private InMail messages. In other words, Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the benefit of the bargain, in that they received a less valuable service than the subscriptions they paid for.”

💡 Paying subscribers are entitled to refunds for services that failed to deliver promised privacy protections.