Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel: X Corp. Sues Bright Data Over Site Scraping

By Liisa Thomas, Wynter Deagle, Anne-Marie Dao & Dane Brody Chanove on August 29, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Trade Secrets blog image - tech

X Corp., the company formerly known as Twitter, recently sued Bright Data over its site scraping activities. Bright Data is a data collection company and advertises—among other services—its “website scraping” solutions. Scraping is not new, nor are lawsuits attempting to stop the activity. We may, though, see a rise in these suits with the rise in companies using them in conjunction with generative AI tools.

This case -and the counts X is alleging- serves as a reminder of the concerns that platforms have about scraping practices. In particular, social media sites that allow users to post personal information. (Indeed, in January Meta filed a similar suit against a different data collection platform). Namely, X has argued:

  • Breach of contract: X’s terms of service, like those of most platforms, prohibits scraping (“scraping the Services without our prior consent is expressly prohibited”). X argues that by scraping usernames, tweets, and even more granular data about users, Bright Data violated that online contract with X.
  • Tortious interference with contract: Bright Data, in addition to scraping itself, also sells scraping tools. Third parties can use these tools to scrape the data on their own. X argues that by providing these tools, Bright Data is helping others violate X’s contracts with those third parties. 
  • Unjust enrichment: Finally, X argues that Bright Data’s receipt of financial benefits (selling the data obtained from scraping) constitutes unjust enrichment.

In addition to a preliminary and permanent injunction, X is also asking that Bright Data identify all recipients of information scraped from the X platform.

Putting It into Practice: With the rise of artificial intelligence and other passive information collection activities, this case is a reminder to those considering using information gathering tools. If using online information gathering tools, do diligence to understand how the information has been gathered. 

 

Photo of Liisa Thomas Liisa Thomas

Liisa Thomas, a partner based in the Chicago and London offices, is Leader of the firm’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group.

Read more about Liisa ThomasEmail
Photo of Wynter Deagle Wynter Deagle

Wynter Deagle is a partner in the Privacy and Cybersecurity Team in the firm’s San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Read more about Wynter DeagleEmail
Photo of Anne-Marie Dao Anne-Marie Dao

Anne-Marie Dao is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm’s San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Read more about Anne-Marie DaoEmail
Photo of Dane Brody Chanove Dane Brody Chanove

Dane Brody Chanove is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm’s San Diego (Del Mar) office.

Read more about Dane Brody ChanoveEmail
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity, Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    Eye On Privacy
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo