Parsing of data: on the two sides of the ocean
In European countries personal data is primarily seen as a non-property good, an extension of the individual, while in the U.S. it is viewed as a commodity in respect of which its owners have legitimate interests. That is why in the U.S. the balance has swung in the direction of the freedom to freely seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information.
U.S. courts believe that it is unecessary to obtain consent from the subject to whom the data belongs to process personal data. This approach is understandable: it doesn't matter as much who views the page – the parser-bot or the user – as long as the requirements for ethical parsing are met
1. The copyright of the site content and related database rights are not violated.
2. Technical protection measures are not circumvented.
A number of parsers can quite easily bypass the restrictions, while remaining anonymous. Specialists advise to take a complex approach to site protection, in particular, to use:
However, you should understand that operators often have to choose between protecting data from parsing and impairing the availability of services for users and search engines. In particular, there may be failures in the operation of sites.
3. No unfair competition (e.g. a company aggregates product information from the sites of several online stores, but does not sell the goods itself, but redirects users to the site of an online store).
4. No losses from failure of the site. Parsers can send several times more requests per second than humans, and it causes a load on the sites - they stop working. If the site is used, for example, as a platform for commercial ads, it can cause huge losses for the site owner.
5. Personal data is used in accordance with the purposes for which it is provided and does not have negative consequences for its subject.
Russian case law: VK v. Double Data
Foreign case law:
1. HIQ Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corp (273 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (N.D. Cal.2017)).
2. Linkedln v. Robocog Inc. (Case No. 14-00068 (N.D. Cal. 2014)).
3. QVC, Inc. v. Resultly, LLC (99 F. Supp. 3d 525 (2015).
4. EBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
5. Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner (Case C-362/14).
Useful Internet resources:
1. Parsing sites. Russia and the World. What does one of the most useful tools look like in terms of the law?
2. How to protect your site from parsing data. Practical tips
3. Deloitte CIS webinar. Parsing: how not to violate the exclusive rights to other people's content.
4. Webinar IP IT BOX Legal Consequences of the VKontakte v. Double data
5. IP IT BOX webinar 519-FZ: new rules on personal data processing
1. Saveliev A. I. Scientific and practical article-by-article commentary on the Federal Law "On personal data"
2. Rozhkova M.A. Resolving the question of the legality of parsing (scraping) in vkontakte v. double data
Oreshin E.I. The VKontakte VS double data case on the use of publicly available user data: double data position before the Court of Intellectual Rights