LinkedIn had multiple layers of scraping detection systems deployed, and went to significant efforts to block their data from getting scraped[1].

Last year, they were ordered by a Federal court explicitly to allow scraping of content and remove systems that were designed to impede and block scraping efforts[2].

There's no clear law (in the US) directly aimed at scraping, and repurposing anti-hacking laws brought up the murky definition of what is unauthorized access. If a judge clarifies explicitly that scraping is not unauthorized access (which happened in this case, although needs to stand up to appeal[3]), then entities that are interested in preventing scraping have lost one of their core legal underpinnings. It demonstrates why companies like Crawlera have been able to flaunt the type of serious scraping work they do, because it's hard to bully people with a legal argument that has been debunked and affirmed as debunked on appeal. So it's better to avoid the risk of setting that precedence entirely until you can't avoid it.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/15/linkedin-sues-scrapers/

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-linkedin-ruling...

[3] https://www.courthousenews.com/linkedin-takes-data-scraping-...