A federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) against Israel’s Bright Data. The case centered on data scraping, the automated collection of publicly available online data, and its appropriate use.
X accused Bright Data of bypassing its anti-scraping technology and collecting data from the platform to sell, allegedly violating X’s terms of service and copyright. X previously sought over $1 million in damages for unauthorized data collection.
Judge William Alsup dismissed the case, stating that X wanted to both benefit from safe harbor protections and restrict access to user data. He warned that allowing social media platforms to control public web data could create harmful information monopolies. The judge noted that X wasn’t primarily focused on user privacy but aimed to profit from data collection.
Bright Data defended its practices, emphasizing that it only collects publicly available information visible to anyone without a login. They stated that their legal wins against both X and Meta underscore that public data should remain accessible to all.
In its statement, Bright Data argued that restricting public data could impact businesses, research, and AI. They believe that denying public access to this data will not succeed in the long run.
A spokesperson for X did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
FAQs
Q1. What was the lawsuit between X and Bright Data about?
X, formerly Twitter, filed a lawsuit against Bright Data, alleging that Bright Data collected and sold data from the platform without permission, violating X’s terms of service and copyright rules.
Q2. What is data scraping, and why is it controversial?
Data scraping is the process of using automated tools to collect publicly accessible information from websites. It's controversial because platforms often try to protect their data for privacy and commercial reasons, while data scraping can be seen as a way to bypass these controls.
Q3. How did Bright Data defend its practices?
Bright Data argued that it only collects data already visible to anyone without a login. They claimed that their legal wins prove that public data online should remain accessible and free from excessive restrictions.
Reference
Comments