LinkedIn Illegally Blocking Free Accounts From Seeing ‘Who’s Viewed Your Profile’ Data, Group Alleges

Why It Matters

If the regulator sides with NOYB, LinkedIn may lose a revenue‑generating feature and set a precedent that could affect subscription strategies across the tech sector.

Key Takeaways

• NOYB alleges LinkedIn's profile‑view data violates GDPR Article 15.
• Free EU users must access visitor data via DSAR, not only premium.
• LinkedIn argues its privacy policy already satisfies Article 15 requirements.
• Potential fines could reach millions if the Austrian regulator rules against LinkedIn.
• Case could reshape “data‑as‑a‑feature” models across tech platforms.

Pulse Analysis

LinkedIn introduced the ability to see who viewed a profile in 2007, later converting it into a premium‑only service. Under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Article 15 guarantees individuals the right to access any personal data a company holds about them. NOYB contends that the "Who’s Viewed Your Profile" data falls squarely within this right, meaning free users should obtain it through a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) without paying a €30‑per‑month ($40) subscription. The platform’s defense hinges on its privacy policy, which it claims already complies with GDPR by offering limited visibility and an anonymity toggle.

The Austrian complaint could force LinkedIn to either open the visitor list to all EU users or face penalties that may run into millions of euros. Legal experts note that while the exact fine amount is uncertain, precedent‑setting cases—such as Google’s €325 million ($381 million) penalty in France—demonstrate regulators’ willingness to impose hefty sanctions for privacy breaches. A ruling against LinkedIn would not only impact its premium revenue stream but also pressure the company to redesign how it monetizes user‑generated data, potentially introducing new consent mechanisms or anonymization layers.

Beyond LinkedIn, the dispute raises broader questions for any tech firm that leverages personal data as a subscription incentive. If courts affirm NOYB’s position, the "data‑as‑a‑feature" model could be curtailed across the industry, prompting firms to reassess product design, pricing, and compliance strategies. Companies will likely invest more in transparent data‑access policies and explore alternative value propositions that do not rely on restricting legally protected information. Staying ahead of evolving EU privacy enforcement will be crucial for maintaining both user trust and sustainable revenue streams.