LinkedIn Lawsuit: AI Training and User Data Privacy Concerns Explored

This week, LinkedIn, the professional networking giant owned by Microsoft, found itself in hot water as it faced a lawsuit accusing it of exploiting its Premium members' private InMail messages to train AI models. While many users rely on LinkedIn for career development, recruitment, and professional networking, allegations like these raise questions about the fundamental trust between users and tech companies over private data usage.
Let's break it all down to understand what’s really happening here, explore the technical facets of AI training on personal data, and examine the broader implications on privacy.

---

The Allegations: What’s the Lawsuit All About?​

The lawsuit, filed in a California federal court on behalf of Alessandro De La Torre and other affected parties, accuses LinkedIn of breaking its promises by sharing Premium customers' private communications (InMail messages) with third parties to train generative AI models. The filing describes these communications as "confidential," often involving sensitive career and personal information, such as employment details, intellectual property discussion, compensation talks, and more.
Here’s a summary of the lawsuit's key allegations:

• LinkedIn allegedly included the contents of InMail, a service for paying customers to directly connect with other LinkedIn users, in datasets shared with third parties for training AI models.
• Premium customers agreed to a distinct contract, the LinkedIn Subscription Agreement (LSA). According to one section of the LSA, LinkedIn promised not to disclose private information to third parties. The lawsuit argues this promise was violated.
• The legal filing specifically cites the inclusion of a "Data for Generative AI Improvement" setting, which is enabled by default for U.S. customers, as evidence of LinkedIn's loose handling of user data.
• Allegations under the United States Stored Communications Act, breach of contract, and unfair competition laws in California were also listed in the filing.

The court battle seeks to determine whether LinkedIn leveraged its subscribers’ private messages and content without proper disclosures or permissions, particularly as it expands its investments in AI.

---

LinkedIn’s Response: Denial and Business as Usual​

To its credit, LinkedIn has outright denied all allegations tied to this lawsuit. A company spokesperson categorically dismissed the claims as "false" and "without merit." However, the lack of an explicit public denial about using InMail content in AI training leaves room for speculation. The lawsuit points out that LinkedIn has yet to clearly and definitively assure users that private InMail contents were excluded from its AI model training.

---

LinkedIn’s Policies: What’s New and Why is it a Problem?​

The "Data for Generative AI Improvement" Setting​

The lawsuit targets LinkedIn’s updated policy language around the "Data for Generative AI Improvement" setting. Here’s what that means:

• By default (in the U.S.), this feature allows LinkedIn to use members' personal data and content to train its generative AI models.
• Data shared via this policy may also be passed on to "affiliates,” which could mean Microsoft itself or external partners supporting AI development.
• Notably, LinkedIn exempted users in jurisdictions with stricter privacy laws — including Canada, the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA), the UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Mainland China — from being included in AI training through these policies.

In essence, users in the U.S.—where federal privacy regulations are notoriously less stringent—could have their content casually integrated into LinkedIn's or third-party generative AI systems. Critics argue that introducing this opt-out setting, rather than requiring opt-in consent, may intentionally disadvantage users less informed about the policy.

---

Technical Concerns: How Does Using Data for AI Training Actually Work?​

LinkedIn’s alleged use of private content, including InMail, to train neural networks isn’t new territory but is certainly controversial. Here’s a quick primer on how the technology works and why it’s problematic:

What’s AI Data Training?​

To train generative AI models like GPT-4, ChatGPT, or similar NLP (Natural Language Processing) systems, vast datasets are required. These include text-based data networks from a myriad of sources like websites, public pages, or private datasets (if permitted). Training involves:

• Data Ingestion: The model reads and absorbs text-focused patterns, structures, grammatical nuances, and contextual conversations from huge datasets.
• Fine-Tuning: AI systems use private or niche datasets (in this case, potentially InMail data) for specialized tasks, such as better career-related conversation understanding.
• Outputs and Feedback: The system improves based on what it learns, undertaking continual refinement.

Why the Concern Around Private Messages?​

• Confidentiality Breach: InMail data, often treated as digital correspondence like email, likely contains sensitive professional discussions. Sharing such private content—even anonymously—for AI training could expose users to risks like data leakage.
• Non-Redacted Data Risk: AI models trained on unfiltered and unredacted communication might inadvertently retain sensitive information.
• Third-Party Sharing: The involvement of external AI developers means LinkedIn potentially loses control over how that data is eventually used.

---

Is the “AI Revolution” Outpacing Privacy Policy?​

The LinkedIn controversy reflects broader tech industry trends regarding how corporate giants like Microsoft, Google, and others are transitioning from conventional data usage toward large-scale AI integration. Here are some key tensions:

• Opt-in Versus Opt-out: By default, LinkedIn opts users into this data-sharing setting. Critics argue this should work the other way around — i.e., users must explicitly agree to share their content.
• Confusion Around Transparency: Companies often make fine-print changes to their Terms of Service surrounding data usage, making it difficult for users to keep up-to-date on what’s being gathered and for what purpose.
• Patchy Regulatory Coverage: While areas like the EU have robust GDPR protections (where LinkedIn is exempt from including users in AI datasets without prior consent), regions like the U.S. operate with a patchwork system, enabling looser data governance norms for tech companies.

---

Why WindowsForum Readers Should Care​

WindowsForum.com's audience consists of tech enthusiasts, IT professionals, and security-conscious users — all of whom will be paying close attention to this situation. Here’s why this lawsuit should matter to you:

• Corporate Double Duty: LinkedIn, through Microsoft, is part of a big tech trend investing heavily in AI. These AI tools power Windows-based innovations, including chat integrations, Cortana, and expanding Microsoft Copilot services. If you’re concerned about how your private data ties into AI, this lawsuit touches the iceberg’s surface.
• Cybersecurity Implications: With AI-based hacking and phishing becoming rampant, companies need robust data safeguards. Improper usage of customer data by large networks like LinkedIn could spark downstream cyber risks.
• Ethics of Trust in Tech: Windows users and cybersecurity advocates alike need transparency measures that help rebuild trust in shared ecosystems.

---

The Bigger Picture: What Happens Next?​

This case serves as a brewing example of how companies need to tread lightly between maximizing AI capabilities and respecting consumer data rights. For LinkedIn, the lawsuit raises serious reputational risks — especially with assertions that its "professional-first networking" brand has undermined confidentiality.
Time will tell whether developers like Microsoft tangibly address consumer concerns or continue operating on the blurred edges of policy language until regulations evolve. Until then, experts and users alike will be watching — and hoping — for companies to clarify where the line is drawn. Would an AI revolution be worth it if it came at the cost of personal privacy? Let the debate begin.

---

What are your thoughts? Let us know below on WindowsForum.com — Does this make you reconsider using Premium features, or are lawsuits like this the cost of living in an AI-powered world? Share your perspective.

---

Source: The Register LinkedIn sued for allegedly training AI on private messages