Noyb filed a GDPR Article 15 complaint against LinkedIn for withholding full profile visitor data from free users while selling it to Premium subscribers.
Key Takeaways
GDPR Article 15 grants users the right to any personal data processed about them, regardless of whether a company profits from packaging that data.
LinkedIn offers Premium users 365-day visitor lists with names, job titles, and employer links; free users get only aggregate hints and are redirected to upsell pages.
LinkedIn’s stated defense, that visitor privacy takes precedence, collapses under Noyb’s argument: if Premium disclosure is legal, free Article 15 disclosure must also be legal.
The only valid Article 15 carve-out is protecting third-party rights and freedoms, but LinkedIn already waives that concern for paying customers.
Noyb’s lawyer cites a parallel banking precedent: banks withholding account statements under GDPR while selling equivalent data as a paid product face the same legal trap.
Hacker News Comment Review
Commenters converged on Noyb’s logical trap: LinkedIn cannot simultaneously claim visitor data is too private to disclose for free while selling access to it for money.
There is genuine disagreement about whose data the visitor list actually is. Some argue visitor history belongs to the visitor, not the profile owner, complicating the Article 15 framing.
A secondary concern: forcing full visitor disclosure could push users toward fake accounts for browsing, creating a reverse-panopticon dynamic that harms the platform’s social trust.
Notable Comments
@immanuwell: “either selling the visitor list to premium users is illegal or handing it over for free under article 15 is mandatory - pick one”
@Macha: LinkedIn claims visitor data is too private to hand over while also selling access to it, a position that cannot survive scrutiny under Article 15.
