introduction

In this day and age, your online personal data is as crucial as your wallet. It’s completely understandable that losing access to your social media accounts can feel like being robbed.

What about a professional account, on which you’ve worked hard to build connections with people? Where some of us make a living, maybe?

With Linkedin, to get your account back, they want even more of your personal information—which that often doesn’t even get you back in.

In this deep dive, I’ll break down not just my nightmare dealing with them but also the bigger picture of how LinkedIn handles these issues. It’s a long read, but stick with me as we untangle this.

…you can also just skip to any relevant sections, obviously.

how it all started

My friend jacob (he/them)—relevant later—updated his LinkedIn profile with some pretty standard stuff: new pronouns, a name change, and recent job experiences. Nothing out of the ordinary, right? Well, not according to LinkedIn, which promptly restricted Jacob's account for allegedly violating their terms of use.

What followed was a Kafkaesque series of appeals where Jacob submitted everything from his passport to utility bills and bank statements—basically his life on paper.

The result? Radio silence from LinkedIn. Whenever Jacob tried to submit another appeal... boom, error message. Nothing worked.

Initially, we thought it was just a typical LinkedIn bug—because, let's face it, the site has its fair share of glitches. So me and my best friend, lexi, inquired, in separate support tickets, about why their forms aren’t working. Weirdly enough, Lexi's ticket went through just fine, and so did a few other attempts from my and another one of Jacob’s emails.

So, was LinkedIn blacklisting Jacob's primary email?

It sure seemed like it!

…because every attempt to communicate through his supposedly (we have no proof, but, I mean…) 'blacklisted' email was met with a failure notice.

the failure notice jacob received whenever he tried to contact them

so, what essentially happened, is that he has submitted a lot of personal information to LinkedIn, including government issued documentation, and he did not get access to his account and data at all, as initially promised.

but worry not, it does not stop there.

Remember in my EA article how I tried to help my friend? well, same thing happened here.

i wanted to help him get his account back. it’s how i am as a person and apparently all it does it bite me in the a**.

I thought my LinkedIn Premium trial might give me an edge with their supposedly superior customer support. So, I reached out, asking them to revisit Jacob's ticket. They replied by saying they couldn’t share details on someone else’s account, which I get, but I wasn’t asking for details, just a push to recheck his case, human-to-human.

1
2
3
4

Here’s where it gets ridiculous—I then received an email, in reply to said ticket, saying MY appeal was denied and that MY account would continue to be restricted. Wait, what?

CONTINUE to be restricted?

My account wasn’t restricted in the first place!

And just like that, they locked me out of my account. I sent them an email back, asking what the hell was going on (politely, of course), and their brilliant solution was for me to send my government ID to unlock it.

Seriously?

This led to another agonizing week of me explaining that they’d probably confused me with Jacob in their ticket response and asserting that I wasn’t about to send more personal information to fix their mistake. They insisted my account had broken professional guidelines.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

What professional guidelines? Unless not listing some minor ‘pharmaceutical sales’ from ages ago was a crime, my profile was just fine.

So, here I am, still locked out of my account… and it gets worse, honestly, it does.

complaints to the bbb

Yes, before anyone says anything: both Jacob and I have indeed reached out to the Better Business Bureau (bbb), on April 21, 2024 and April 24, 2024 respectively. We filed our complaints against LinkedIn, demanding access to our data, reinstatement of the accounts, and a legitimate explanation beyond the robotic responses we were tired of receiving.

Surprise, surprise, these complaints disappeared into the abyss—no acknowledgment, no reply, nada so far.

sent by jacob, in regards to his complaint

Honestly, we weren’t expecting a response, but it was crucial for us to document everything. By going through official channels, we’ve now got a paper trail showing LinkedIn’s blatant disregard for GDPR compliance and their general indifference.

And if you’re wondering, Jacob and I aren’t the only ones dealing with this. Just check out this page to see a whole list of similar unresolved complaints against LinkedIn.

It’s like a graveyard of customer grievances that never received a proper burial.

I get it, though—the BBB isn’t exactly a regulatory powerhouse capable of enforcing responses from giants like LinkedIn. They're more of an intermediary, a bridge for communication between pissed-off consumers and seemingly untouchable corporations.

Despite its limitations, the BBB is somewhat effective because it often provides a more direct route to address companies like LinkedIn—and don’t even get me started on Discord— that seem to bend over backwards just to avoid direct contact with their users.

But that’s a tale for another article…

linkedin ignores gdpr

Remember when I said it gets worse? Well, here it is.

If you’ve been living under a rock, The General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is Europe’s way of saying, “Hey, let’s get serious about data privacy.” This regulation, passed in April 2016 and fully enforced from May 25, 2018, lays down the law on how companies should handle your data, making sure they ask nicely (read: get your consent) before collecting it, and treat it with the care it deserves. It mandates transparency, requiring companies to clearly explain why they need your data and how they plan to use it.

Back to my point…

During one of my email exchanges with LinkedIn support, I mentioned that forcing me to submit government ID as the sole method to access my data was a violation of GDPR. Their response? They actually threatened to cease communication with me altogether!

Yes, you heard that right.

Don't believe me?

1
2

Not once did LinkedIn suggest any other way for me to get my data. They never said, “Alright, we won’t lift the restriction, but if you’re desperate to get your data, here’s how you can export it.” That would’ve been annoying, sure, but at least it’d be closer to following the law.

Moreover, attempting to export a non-restricted account’s data through LinkedIn’s platform is a joke anyway. My best friend Lexi tried it, and what she got was far from complete. I can’t show you her data for privacy reasons, but take it from me—or better yet, try it yourself.

Go ahead and export your LinkedIn data and you’ll see that many of the profile sections you slaved over come back blank.

It’s not a tiny glitch; it’s a full-on data fail.

Surprised? Not really.

...as this is coming from a company that was recently slapped with a whopping $425 million in GDPR fines, which Microsoft (LinkedIn's parent company) is scrambling to appeal and bury under layers of legal maneuvers.

If you’re interested in the details, check out these articles:

clearly, LinkedIn’s disregard for GDPR is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a bigger pattern of putting corporate gain over user rights and data safety.

want to unsubscribe? good luck!

So, while this isn’t as painful, I think it’s important to point out. As I was investigating this, a friend of mine pointed out a sneaky issue: you can’t really unsubscribe from LinkedIn’s emails. I tried following the email unsubscribe links myself and ended up going in circles.

source: theo @ subdermal gazette, sent on guilded

This isn't just a minor annoyance. It reeks of LinkedIn’s complete disregard for user preferences and autonomy. Normally, the process to unsubscribe should be straightforward—you click a link in the email, and you're done.

But with LinkedIn, these links are like a bad comedy act—no punchline.

Sure, you could try to wade through the confusing mess of account settings to turn off these emails, but that’s assuming you can even get into your account. What if you're locked out or your account is restricted? Plus, not everyone is tech-savvy enough to figure out LinkedIn's complex settings menu or to even know they should look there.

This issue might seem small in the grand scheme of things, but it's emblematic of a larger problem. It feels almost manipulative, as if LinkedIn is making it difficult on purpose to keep sending you emails no matter how hard you try to opt out.

This shady opt-out game not only clutters your inbox but also raises serious questions about LinkedIn’s respect for user control and consent. When you stack this up with the big data privacy and account issues, it paints a pretty grim picture of a company that seriously needs to up its game in treating users right.

linkedin et comp., persona inc. 

(nb fellow romanians: et comp.? yeah? no? haha, i read.)

Amidst this whole identity verification mess, LinkedIn has introduced a new player: Persona Identities Inc.

At first glance, their partnership for identity verification might seem like a standard security measure. A quick look at Persona’s site doesn’t show any major red flags, aside from what looks like the virtual equivalent of someone watching you shower.

But here's where things get even more interesting—Persona isn't just any identity verification platform. They specialize in biometric verification.

Yes: biometric!

This means they're not just checking your ID documents; they're potentially scanning your face, passport chip, your fingerprints, or other personally identifiable biological traits.

Is this all truly necessary for account verification?

Not really.

so, what's the issue?

a look into linkedin’s and persona’s so called privacy policies

alexander hanff (LLM, CIPPE, CIPT)— aka a guy who knows what the hell he’s talking about—has some interesting insights to share. In his article, which you can read here, he discusses how both LinkedIn’s and Persona’s privacy policies are potentially unlawful according to a whole lot of EU laws on data protection.

I say #Privacy #Policy but they actually have 2 and I would argue neither of them comply with EU law and the service is probably illegal under various State laws on biometric data - but they have a waiver in their "Privacy Policy" against any person joining a class action (also a breach of the #GDPR - you cannot have waivers in your privacy notice - it is NOT a #contract). They also give themselves the right to collect #data from all sorts of third parties (including your #telecoms provider) and allow themselves all sorts of "legitimate interests”.

alexander hanff (LLM, CIPPE, CIPT)

This is relevant for several reasons. First of all, whenever you try to appeal anything account-related through LinkedIn, they shove this so-called privacy policy in your face.

Every. Single. Time.

A privacy policy that essentially tells you they have rights to all your data, and ‘screw you’.

Second of all, it is relevant because Persona specifically, which as I’ve mentioned, is the company handling your BIOMETRIC data, unlawfully states you can’t sue them!

So, if they do anything wrong, I guess ‘screw you’ again!

What’s incredibly funny about this post, is that it’s informative, well-written, helpful, and obviously, BLOCKED by LinkedIn if visited from external sources.

So, that being said, if you tried to click above and failed to open the article, I urge you to copy the link and paste it directly into your browser, having been logged onto your account. Otherwise, you can’t read it.

Thanks, LinkedIn! This isn’t censorship at all!

Please feel free to consult their policies yourself, as linked in Alexander’s article, and see everything they have access to. I am not going to paste stuff here line by line, but the gist of it is what he explained… and more.

So, just so you’re aware of how your data is collected and used, please read all of those policies:

modus operandi: linkedin corp. & persona identities inc.

If everything I’ve detailed so far wasn’t troubling enough, brace yourself for an ever deeper dive into the history of misdeeds by LinkedIn and their new ally, Persona Identities Inc.

i am doing this as those cases, while semi-accessible to the public, are in no way, shape, or form, actually accessible.

have you heard of many of those? no.

do you have a right to know? yes! yes, you do!

…and i want you to know about them, so let’s take a look at what has been going on over the years.

If you can’t access the links provided, creating an account on the platform I used is free. If that's too much hassle, shoot me a message and I’ll get the information to you directly.

Timeline of Misconduct

2013: Before GDPR was even a thing

LinkedIn faced a lawsuit for privacy violations back in September 2013.

Four users claimed LinkedIn was impersonating them to harvest their contacts' emails. These emails weren't just one-offs; LinkedIn allegedly spammed these contacts with several follow-ups, prompting them to join LinkedIn.

The case, heard by US District Judge Lucy Koh, revealed that while users might have agreed to LinkedIn sending an initial recruitment email, they did not consent to the spam-fest that followed.

This highlights how this is by no means a recent issue. Not that we should be surprised…

2022: HIQ LABS INC v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION

In another notable case, HIQ Labs clashed with LinkedIn over user data. HIQ Labs, a company that analyzes workforce data, was prevented by LinkedIn from deleting user data that HIQ had scraped from LinkedIn profiles. LinkedIn argued against HIQ's practices, citing user privacy concerns, which seems ironic given LinkedIn's own history with user data.

2024: Jackson v. LinkedIn Corporation

This recent lawsuit nails the modern data drama, asserting that "the world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data."

It was initiated by Jacqueline Jackson after LinkedIn used the "LinkedIn Pixel" to unlawfully track and collect personal disability information from visitors to the California DMV website.

This tracking was done without the knowledge or consent of the individuals affected, using their personal data to boost LinkedIn’s advertising revenue.

I don’t think that anything I can possibly comment on this is more blatant than facts themselves.

2024: Parker et al v. Persona Identities, Inc.

Teaming up with a company like Persona makes sense for LinkedIn when you consider this lawsuit…

Persona was sued for illegally collecting and storing biometric data from DoorDash delivery drivers without their consent.

The lawsuit accuses Persona of capturing facial geometries and sharing this sensitive biometric data with third parties, all without proper notification or consent from the individuals affected.

This case highlights the serious risks of mishandling biometric data, a bad habit for LinkedIn’s partners.

Why it’s relevant

Sure, you’re thinking... ‘dude, you said GDPR, but these are all cases from the U.S.’

First of all, I’m sharing them with you so you’re aware of their general disregard for privacy. If they don’t comply in the US, they won’t comply under GDPR.

Second of all, just so you U.S. citizens know, let’s talk about the U.S. GDPR equivalents:

  • California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) - Passed in June 2018, effective January 1, 2020
    • Targets businesses with gross revenues over $25 million, handling data of 50,000+ consumers, or earning 50%+ of revenue from selling data. 
    • Consumers can know what data is collected, opt-out of sales, request deletion, and get a data report. Businesses must provide at least two methods for consumers to submit requests, including a toll-free number and a website.
  • Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) - Passed in March 2021, effective January 1, 2023
    • Applies to businesses handling data of 100,000+ consumers or 25,000+ consumers if over 50% of revenue comes from data sales. 
    • Consumers can access, correct, delete, and get a copy of their data. Companies must minimize data collection and use, with mandatory privacy impact assessments for high-risk data processing.
  • Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) - Passed in July 2021, effective July 1, 2023
    • Covers businesses processing data of 100,000+ consumers or 25,000+ if selling data. 
    • Consumers can access, correct, delete data, and opt out of data sales and targeted advertising. Businesses need to conduct data protection assessments and ensure data security and transparency.
  • Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA) - Passed in March 2022, effective December 31, 2023
    • Targets businesses with $25 million+ revenue, data of 100,000+ consumers, or 25,000+ consumers if earning over 50% of revenue from data sales. Provides rights to access, delete, and copy personal data, with a strong focus on transparency and clear communication about data practices.
  • Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) - Passed in May 2022, effective July 1, 2023
    • Applies to businesses handling data of 100,000+ consumers or 25,000+ if over 25% of revenue comes from data sales. Grants rights to access, correct, delete, and obtain data. Requires businesses to conduct privacy assessments and implement security measures.

So, again, it’s no surprise that LinkedIn would choose to partner with Persona, given both entities' track records. The legal histories of LinkedIn and Persona are riddled with privacy abuses and data mismanagement. This partnership may be new, but the pattern of disregard for user privacy and data protection is not.

so, they also hate lgbt people, disabled people, and… people who don’t agree with them…?

of course, we have jacob and me. both LGBT, him non-binary (he/them), and me currently undergoing chemotherapy…

all those details were perfectly visible on our profiles.

so, while i will say that this is circumstantial at best, it does make you wonder a little bit… if perhaps it may have something to do with it.

Why?

Why Discrimination Is at Play

well, there’s the ridiculous number of accounts owned by transgender people they are restricting. now, let’s put the two and two together and figure out how that’s discriminatory against trans people.

Linkedin user AJ Singh shares their part Kafka, part Orwell story. Singh’s account was suddenly restricted, and LinkedIn’s solution? Exactly what you might think: Demand a government ID to even begin a conversation about why.

For a trans person, this means providing an ID with their deadname, a process that’s not just a bureaucratic hassle but an emotional gut punch, and let’s not choke on words—it's discriminatory.

Singh reopened the case after it being closed several times (as per usual), only to be met with a casual “oops, your account was restricted in error.”

Putting folx through harm and then saying 'oops!', is not ok.

aj singh

Then there’s the Straw v. LinkedIn Corp. saga, showing how the idiotic policy screws over disabled people too. Straw’s account got shut down just like Jacob’s, with zero help from LinkedIn to sort it out in a fair way, after he complained on the platform about the discrimination he faced from his previous employer, the Indiana Supreme Court.

Political Bias in Account Restrictions

The situation appears even more complex considering allegations of political bias. Several lawsuits suggest LinkedIn has banned users who hold political views differing from those of the company's CEO.

For instance:

2020: perez v. linkedin corporation

Perez claims that LinkedIn violated Anti-SLAPP laws by censoring and destroying his account in May 2020 (anti-slapp) after he exercised his right to Preferred Political Free Speech on issues of public interest, specifically warnings about the Chinese Communist Party's "Unrestricted Warfare" Multi Domain Doctrine.

Perez’s speech was directed to his 7,000 consenting contacts, including high-profile U.S. military and government leaders such as U.S. General Robert Spalding and US Senator Mark Warner.

The lawsuit argues that LinkedIn's actions prevented Perez from accessing his network and exercising his right to free speech and petition, effectively breaching the implied contract of unbiased service provision.

2021: Mehl v. LinkedIn Corporation

A classic tale of David versus Goliath, where Mehl, founder & CEO at America Israel Society, alleges LinkedIn axed his account— with over 5,300 contacts spanning business, finance, tech, and diplomacy— on December 8, 2020, claiming he violated their User Agreement.

Mehl’s states that Linkedin has been stripping him of access to a network he built over decades, crucial to his global professional reputation.

Mehl used and managed the LinkedIn Account in his capacity as founder, CEO, and administrator of various LinkedIn company pages and groups, as follows: (a) America Israel Society, (b) Midrash.Tech, (c) Mehl Partners, (d) Panache Privee, (ec) BanxCorp, (f) Global Israel Society, and (g) Global I Ventures Tel Aviv, with an active presence in North America, Latin America, Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia-Pacific.

Hold on, it gets better as we go further into this.

Enter Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s founding maestro and later its executive chairman. Hoffman is not just a tech mogul but a vocal adversary of former President Donald Trump and a heavyweight Democratic donor.

His résumé of anti-Trump movements includes bankrolling MotiveAI and channeling funds into partisan digital media ventures like New Media Ventures and Acronym.

Here’s where it gets interesting…

the lincoln project: linkedin disobeys its own rules

DISCLAIMER: I want to clarify that I am by no means trying to impose any political views on anyone through this section. Honestly, I am not a fan of either Trump or Biden. However, it is relevant for me to expose this data as context for the events that happened.

It seems LinkedIn, under the politically-charged chairman Reid Hoffman, might be having a little identity crisis.

The platform has found itself breaking its own rules. Yes, the same rules it expects its millions of users to follow to the letter.

Let’s rewind a bit. On July 29, 2020, Reid Hoffman decided to sprinkle some of his billionaire magic on a rather whimsical venture. Teaming up with Meme 2020, Lincoln Project, Six Point Harness, and Rhyme Combinator, Hoffman launched a digital campaign that reads like a Gen Z dream: memes, cartoons, and battle rap aimed at lampooning the then-president, Donald Trump.

The goal? To rally the younger crowd against Trump and ensure Joe Biden's victory in the upcoming election.

Fast forward a bit, and we see the Lincoln Project, with Hoffman’s funding, getting a bit too enthusiastic. By November 10, 2020, the Lincoln Project decided to weaponize LinkedIn in a rather unorthodox way.

They urged their 2.7 million Twitter followers to create fake LinkedIn profiles and harass employees at law firms Jones Day and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, representing Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania. They even went as far as providing LinkedIn addresses of these firms and people, a move that dances dangerously close to targeted harassment.

Why?

To encourage these employees to quit in a dramatic protest against their firm’s efforts to challenge the election results.

This directive was a clear violation of LinkedIn's own User Agreement, which frowns upon creating fake profiles and harassment.

Message someone who works at @JonesDay or @PorterWright. Ask them how they can work for an organization trying to overturn the will of the American people.

@projectlincoln, twitter.com

Not stopping there, the Lincoln Project also launched a hefty $500,000 integrated advertising blitz on Twitter and LinkedIn, specifically targeting Jones Day and Porter Wright employees, nudging them to “resign in protest.”

This integrated ad campaign was in effort to sway public opinion and disrupt the law firms' operations, bordering on cyberbullying.

So, here we are, with LinkedIn, the professional networking giant, seemingly turning a blind eye to a blatant breach of its own rules by one of its most influential backers.

Could it be that LinkedIn is marching to the beat of its own digital drum, orchestrated by none other than Reid Hoffman and his meme-wielding, battle-rapping cohorts at the Lincoln Project…?

or...

is it just that linkedin hates human beings?

Despite them not being able to stop reminding us of their oh-so-important guidelines: “don’t lie about your identity,” “don’t lie about your professional background,” basically, “don’t lie,” “don’t breathe,” LinkedIn seems blissfully blind to the wave of fake accounts and AI-generated content flooding their platform.

It’s almost as if the only thing LinkedIn truly detests is a living, breathing human being with an opinion.

In an era where AI-generated content is becoming as ubiquitous as cat videos on YouTube, LinkedIn seems to have rolled out the red carpet for these fake accounts and cookie-cutter ‘professional advice’ for clicks. Even when flooded with reports about these accounts, LinkedIn’s response is a collective shrug.

So, what’s the deal, LinkedIn? Is it just us pesky humans with our pesky human rights and pesky human opinions that you can’t stand? You do know that platform is teeming with AI accounts that couldn’t tell a C-suite from a coat rack, right?

cases dismissed: what it means

Putting my ‘serious tone’ hat back on. I had to make jokes in the previous section, or I would’ve broken down stress-laughing. Anyway… 

Let’s circle back to the lawsuits a little bit.

One thing stands out: nearly all the cases I mentioned, except for the HIQ lawsuit, got tossed out. This includes ones where the plaintiff filed a motion to do so or LinkedIn pushed hard for a dismissal.

So, what does this mean for everyone involved and for future lawsuits? Let’s break it down in plain English.

Legal Implications of Case Dismissals

Legally, a case getting dismissed means the court decided it’s game over without a trial or verdict. Reasons for a dismissal can be:

  • Voluntary Dismissal by the Plaintiff
    • Sometimes, plaintiffs drop their cases because of sky-high litigation costs, the grind of a long legal battle, or they cut a deal out of court with the defendant.
  • Dismissal by the Court
    • This happens if the court thinks there’s not enough legal juice to keep the case going, or if the rules (like filing deadlines) aren’t followed.
  • Out-of-Court Settlements
    • Often dubbed ‘hush money’...
    • ...these are deals where the defendant pays off the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit. These deals aren’t admissions of guilt but are usually used to dodge the spotlight and the wild card of a trial.
  • Threats or Legal Pressure
    • Sometimes, plaintiffs might feel forced to drop their cases because of direct or indirect pressures… you get me.

Persona’s Policy and Case Dismissal

In the case against Persona Identities Inc., it’s likely the dismissal was nudged by the clause in Persona’s policy that prevents users from suing the company—a common but shady move known as an "arbitration agreement".

These agreements usually shove consumers into arbitration, a private setup that tends to lean towards the companies, instead of letting them sue in public court. This not only keeps companies like Persona out of the public eye but also often screws over the complainants with less favorable outcomes.

The Bigger Picture

The way these cases got tossed out, especially under such sketchy conditions, is pretty suspect and deserves a closer look. It’s a move that can scare off future lawsuits, making other folks think twice about taking on big shots like LinkedIn and Persona.

Plus, booting these cases without solid answers leaves us hanging on critical issues about corporate behavior and user rights. This kind of murkiness lets companies keep doing shady stuff without facing real consequences.

conclusion

The big question isn’t just if LinkedIn is stealing our data; it’s more about how they’re doing it and why they’re getting away with it so easily.

The proof is crystal clear.

Tons of accounts are getting restricted or banned, and LinkedIn’s demanding government IDs from people all over the world, cutting across all sorts of disabilities and identities.

Is LinkedIn just really bad at handling a diverse global crowd, or is there something shadier going on? The push for this personal info, especially with Persona Identities Inc. and their biometric data hustle, smells like a big, calculated data grab.

Are they just being cluelessly insensitive, or are they crossing into bigotry territory?

Or, even worse, is this a sneaky move to turn Persona Identities into a goldmine of personal data?

With unresolved lawsuits, shady dismissals, and a non-stop grab for data, it all screams that LinkedIn might care more about harvesting data than treating its users right. 

So, the burning question for LinkedIn: Can we get our data back? Or better yet, can we get a professional platform that actually respects user privacy and sticks to ethical standards?

that’s all.

care for another newsletter?

cool, cause i've got one too.

choose your language:

I'll let you know when i post... and that's about it.

part of

serious stuff