- Lawsuit Claims Data Misuse: LinkedIn is accused of sharing Premium customers’ private InMail messages with third parties to train AI models, allegedly breaching its privacy promises.
- Focus on Premium Users: The legal complaint highlights violations of the LinkedIn Subscription Agreement (LSA), which guarantees confidentiality for paying subscribers.
- No Evidence Yet: The lawsuit offers no concrete proof that private messages were shared, relying on LinkedIn’s policy changes and lack of public denials as grounds for the claims.
A new lawsuit alleges LinkedIn has been leveraging Premium customers’ private InMail messages for training artificial intelligence models. Filed in a California federal court on behalf of Alessandro De La Torre, the lawsuit claims the Microsoft-owned platform breached its contractual promises by sharing sensitive communications with third parties to train AI systems. The allegations stem from LinkedIn’s disclosure of policy changes last year that outlined its use of member data for AI model training.
According to the lawsuit, LinkedIn’s updated policies exempt users in regions like the EU, UK, and Canada from having their data used for AI training. However, in the United States, where federal privacy protections are limited, a default setting titled “Data for Generative AI Improvement” permits the use of personal data and content for AI purposes. While LinkedIn publicly states this setting governs the use of user-generated content for training, the lawsuit questions whether private InMail messages, used primarily by Premium subscribers, have been included without explicit consent.
The legal filing focuses on LinkedIn’s Premium customers, who subscribe to tiers like Premium Career and Sales Navigator. These users are bound by the LinkedIn Subscription Agreement (LSA), which explicitly promises not to disclose confidential information to third parties. The complaint alleges LinkedIn violated this agreement, potentially exposing sensitive employment and personal data shared in InMail messages. The claims include violations of the US Stored Communications Act, breach of contract, and unfair competition under California law.
Despite the serious allegations, the lawsuit does not provide concrete evidence that InMail messages were included in AI training data. Instead, it points to LinkedIn’s policy revisions and the lack of public assurances that private messages were excluded. The filing also accuses LinkedIn of attempting to obscure its data practices through unannounced policy changes.
LinkedIn has denied the claims, labeling them as baseless. The company insists that the allegations lack merit. Meanwhile, the law firm representing the plaintiff, Edelson PC, has not responded to inquiries about whether any evidence supports the assertion that private messages were shared. As the case unfolds, it raises broader concerns about privacy in the era of AI-driven data use and the obligations of platforms to protect sensitive user information.
