{"lede":"EU privacy group Noyb has filed a complaint against LinkedIn, alleging the platform violates GDPR by restricting non-premium users’ access to profile visitor data, spotlighting broader issues of data ownership in social media.","paragraph1":"Noyb, a prominent EU privacy advocacy group, argues that LinkedIn’s practice of limiting detailed profile visitor lists to premium subscribers contravenes GDPR Article 15, which grants users the right to access all personal data processed by a company, free of charge. The complaint stems from LinkedIn’s rejection of a non-premium user’s data access request, with the platform claiming that protecting the data takes precedence. Noyb’s Martin Baumann counters that monetizing user data by selling access back to users does not exempt companies from GDPR obligations (Source: The Register, 2026).","paragraph2":"This case echoes broader patterns of data ownership disputes in the EU, where platforms like Facebook and Google have faced similar scrutiny under GDPR for leveraging user data as a revenue stream. For instance, a 2022 ruling by the European Data Protection Board against Meta clarified that withholding user data behind paywalls violates access rights, a precedent that could apply to LinkedIn’s model (Source: EDPS Annual Report 2022). Additionally, LinkedIn’s assertion that non-premium users can access visitor data is demonstrably false, as evidenced by user experiences and screenshots, undermining the company’s credibility on GDPR compliance (Source: The Register, 2026).","paragraph3":"Mainstream coverage often misses the systemic implications of such cases, focusing on individual complaints rather than the underlying tension between business models and EU data protection laws. LinkedIn’s approach reflects a pattern among tech giants to segment data access based on payment, a tactic that challenges the principle of data as a user right, not a commodity. As GDPR enforcement tightens, with fines exceeding €1.5 billion in 2023 alone (Source: DLA Piper GDPR Fines Report 2023), this case could redefine how social media platforms balance monetization with legal obligations."}