Privacy News LinkedIn shouldn’t ask for money from users who want to see profile visits, complaint says

[Brownie2019]

Content source

https://cybernews.com/news/linkedin-premium-user-data-profile-visits/

Many corporate workers across the US, the EU, and elsewhere have long been paying close to $30 per month for LinkedIn Premium, a membership that lets them see who has visited their profiles. In a new complaint, a non-profit says this sort of tracking might not be legal – and even if it is, the data should be available to users for free.
Already back in October 2024, LinkedIn was hit with a €310 million ($362 million) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) penalty after Ireland’s data protection watchdog found several breaches in relation to its processing of user data for behavioral advertising.
This time, noyb, a Vienna-based privacy rights group, is targeting something bigger: LinkedIn Premium’s most enticing feature, allowing users to see who’s been checking them out over a period of time.
With monthly prices ranging from $29.99 to $170, LinkedIn Premium doesn’t come cheap. Still, many users rave about its value.
However, noyb says that users – at least those who are EU citizens – should be able to request such information and receive it free of charge under the bloc’s GDPR.
The data protection law indeed provides Europeans with a suite of rights over their personal information, including a right of access (Article 15), which allows them to obtain a copy of their data on request.
Microsoft-owned LinkedIn, however, provides profile viewership information to users who pay for its premium tier. The professional social network denies data access requests made by non-paying users.
“It is absurd that companies only seem to recognize the importance of data protection when they want to sell data,” Martin Baumann, data protection lawyer at noyb, said.
“Selling data to its own users is a popular practice among companies. In reality, however, people have the right to receive their own data free of charge.”
The organization has lodged a complaint (PDF) with the Austrian Data Protection Authority on behalf of a LinkedIn user and is demanding a full response to his access request.
Furthermore, noyb is proposing that a fine be imposed to prevent similar breaches in the future. Fines under the EU privacy law can reach up to 4% of global annual turnover.
The rights group is also sending a helpful reminder that the GDPR sets out various rights enabling users to access and amend their data – even if companies often continue to charge a fee for this.
In 2024, for example, noyb filed a complaint against the creditors’ association KSV1870, which urged people to purchase a high-priced “InfoPass” rather than receive a free copy of their data.

 

[Bot]

Short answer:

noyb’s argument is plausible under GDPR, but whether LinkedIn’s specific “Who viewed your profile” feature must be provided for free under Article 15 is not something that can be stated as settled fact unless and until a regulator or court confirms it.

What GDPR clearly says

• Article 15 gives people in the EU a right to access their personal data.
• In general, that access must be provided free of charge.
• A company cannot simply repackage personal data behind a paid feature and assume that removes GDPR access rights.

So the core principle noyb is relying on is real.

Where the legal dispute probably is

The difficult part is whether profile-view information, in the form LinkedIn presents it, fully qualifies as personal data that must be disclosed through a standard access request.

That may depend on points such as:

• Whether LinkedIn actually stores identifiable records of profile viewers for that user
• Whether all of that information is considered the requesting user’s personal data, another person’s personal data, or a mix of both
• Whether disclosure would affect the rights and freedoms of other users
• Whether the Premium feature includes extra analytics, formatting, filtering, or historical retention beyond the minimum GDPR access obligation

That distinction matters. GDPR gives access to personal data, but it does not automatically mean every commercial feature built around that data must be reproduced for free in the same interface.

Important nuance

If LinkedIn is refusing access entirely to data that legally falls under Article 15, that could be a problem.

If LinkedIn is saying, in effect, “You can get your data through a GDPR request, but Premium gives you a more polished product with added convenience or analytics,” that would be a different legal question.

From the quoted text alone, I cannot verify which of those is happening in practice.

About the earlier GDPR fine</B]

The reference to the earlier Irish GDPR penalty is separate context. A past fine for advertising-related processing does not by itself prove that LinkedIn is violating GDPR here as well. It may support scrutiny, but this complaint will still need to be assessed on its own facts.

Practical takeaway

• noyb’s complaint is not frivolous.
• The legal theory behind it is grounded in a real GDPR access right.
• But it is too early to claim that LinkedIn’s Premium viewer feature is definitively unlawful.

The careful conclusion is that this is a credible privacy dispute, not yet an established violation.