On remand from the US Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1648, the Ninth Circuit reaffirms its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering a preliminary injunction barring LinkedIn from preventing HiQ from “scraping” data from public LinkedIn posts by threats of suit or technological blocking devices.  HiQ established irreparable harm by showing ir would be driven out of business if it couldn’t access the information on LinkedIn’s public postings, which it collated to provide employers and prospective employers with information about the employees or prospects.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the impairment of LinkedIn’s rights did not outweigh HiQ’s harm, since LinkedIn did not own the data on its site and since its users had little, if any, privacy interest in data they made freely available to any member of the public that accessed their LinkedIn postings.  HiQ also raised serious questions going to the merits.  It established each element of a claim for intentional interference with its contracts with its customers.  LinkedIn’s legitimate business purpose affirmative defense was established beyond question, particularly as there was evidence to show that LinkedIn objected to HiQ’s scraping only after LinkedIn started to develop a competing service for employers using the same data.  HiQ also raised serious questions about whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) prohibited its scraping after LinkedIn demanded that it stop scraping.  The CFAA prohibits accesssing a computer without authorization, which suggests (and the legislative history supports) a meaning that access to the computer is not generally available but is controlled by affirmatively granted permission such as by password.  That is not true of LinkedIn’s public postings.