Image: Thaspol Sangsee/Shutterstock.com
LinkedIn is at the center of serious new allegations. The website Golem reports in detail on the case, citing activists from the organization Fairlinked e.V., who accuse the professional networking site of systematically spying on users via hidden JavaScript code. At its core, the issue revolves around a delicate question: Was LinkedIn merely trying to protect itself against automated data collection—or was information secretly gathered in the process that should never have been collected on the platform?
One thing is clear: the allegation is explosive. After all, LinkedIn is not just any social network. With around 1.3 billion users worldwide, the platform holds an enormous amount of power. In the EU, it is therefore considered a major player in need of special regulation under both the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act.
What Fairlinked specifically accuses LinkedIn of
The debate was sparked by the Fairlinked association. This group brings together business users of LinkedIn who accuse the platform of massive data protection violations. What makes this particularly troubling is not only the sheer volume but also the nature of the data collected. According to the activists, the system is designed to search for thousands of browser extensions, including many tools that directly compete with LinkedIn’s offerings. This raises the suspicion that LinkedIn is not merely seeking to identify technical risks, but is also able to track which users or companies are using competing products.
This is precisely where the allegation becomes politically and economically explosive. For if such data were linked to profiles, it might be possible to identify which companies are using alternative sales or recruiting tools.
Why the criticism is so harsh
As Golem reports, Fairlinked does not refer to a gray area, but rather to a clear violation. The statement reads: “Under EU law, this category of data is not regulated. It is prohibited. LinkedIn has no consent, no disclosure, and no legal basis. None of this is mentioned in the privacy policy.”
There is another issue that exacerbates the criticism. According to the activists, installed extensions could even reveal particularly sensitive information—such as political preferences, religious practices, or users with neurodivergent conditions. Whether these conclusions are actually reliable in individual cases is one thing. However, the mere possibility that such information could be indirectly inferred is enough to make the situation highly problematic.
LinkedIn denies the allegations
Lat Golem denies using the data unlawfully. The company has acknowledged using a fingerprinting script, but explains that this is solely intended to protect against web scraping—that is, the automated extraction of profile data by bots or third-party providers.
This pits two completely different narratives against each other: on one side, users and activists who speak of covert surveillance; on the other, a corporation that claims it is merely defending its platform against abuse.
Lawsuits are pending—and the pressure is mounting
The case has since had legal repercussions. Class-action lawsuits have already been filed in the U.S., and legal proceedings are also underway in Germany. In addition, it is expected that European authorities may also take a closer look at the matter. This comes at an inopportune time for LinkedIn, as the platform has already faced scrutiny over privacy issues in the past.
And this is precisely where the real problem lies: A platform that markets itself as a reputable professional network must handle user data with the utmost care. Technical self-protection is one thing. Secretly delving deep into users’ devices is something entirely different. If the suspicion is confirmed, this would not be a minor data protection blunder, but a massive breach of trust. This is particularly troubling in the case of LinkedIn: A network that thrives on professionalism must not act like a shadowy player when looking behind the scenes.
Sources: golem.de
