LinkedIn – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)

In a combined case, two data subjects sought an order from the Amsterdam District Court for preliminary relief prohibiting LinkedIn (controller) from using tracking cookies on their website. The data subjects claimed that LinkedIn deployed two tracking cookies (li-gc cookie & b cookie) on their devices without having first received consent, as required under both the Dutch implementation of the ePrivacy Directive (Telecommunicatiewet (Tw)) and Article 6(1) GDPR. This action was filed on March 12 2025. In support of their claim, the data subjects relied upon a HAR study (a file within which network traffic is recorded) which allegedly showed that the two cookies in question were deployed before the data subject’s had given consent. Alongside this HAR file, the data subjects also submitted a report by an IT and security specialist who confirmed their claims. These cookies, it was claimed, were tracking cookies used by LinkedIn for their Real Time Bidding (RTB) system which allows for the display of targeted advertisements on their platform. LinkedIn denied the data subject’s claims. In their defense, they argued and both cookies were technically necessary, thus not requiring prior collection of consent under the Tw or the GDPR. They submitted that the li-gc cookie is used to store and retrieve website visitor cookie preferences and the B cookie is deployed to prevent fraudulent traffic and detect abuse on their platform. LinkedIn further argued that, in any event, both data subjects had given consent to the use of non-technically necessary cookies. In support of this, they produced screenshotted proof of the fact that the data subjects had consented to the question “Can LinkedIn and third parties use cookies to deliver relevant advertisements (including jobs) to you on and off our services and to measure the display and effectiveness of the advertisements?”. During the proceedings, the data subjects argued that they were not aware that the provision of consent as formulated above extended to the provision of targeted advertisements. The Court refused the relief sought. The Court found that LinkedIn had convincingly demonstrated that the two data subjects had given their consent to non-technically necessary cookies for the period in question. The Court noted that the data subject’s claims that they were unclear as to the extent of this permission could not be sustained as the consent formulation clearly extended beyond LinkedIn’s own use. In light of this finding, the Court did not deem it necessary to consider whether the cookies in question were technically necessary or not. This decision was thus made without prejudice to that allegation. The data subjects were ordered to pay LinkedIn’s costs.