LinkedIn recently removed the company page of Apollo.io, a sales engagement platform that uses scraping techniques to collect LinkedIn profile data. The business-focused social media platform has also removed company pages belonging to similar firms like Seamless.ai. This move signals LinkedIn’s continued crackdown on unauthorized data collection, even when that data is publicly visible.
Apollo’s CEO, Tim Zheng, responded that the takedown “does not disrupt Apollo’s services or impact our core platform functionality,” but the message from LinkedIn is clear: automated access to public user data without permission won’t be tolerated.
3 Ways Public Data Restrictions Impact the Digital Marketplace
- Limited competition.
- Higher cost for businesses.
- Fewer consumer choices.
The Apollo takedown isn’t just an isolated incident; it’s part of a wider pattern where Big Tech firms are redefining the rules around public data. Once a shared resource openly leveraged by researchers, developers, and startups alike, Big Tech is increasingly treating publicly viewable information as proprietary.
As platforms like LinkedIn crack down on automated access, they’re setting the tone for a new era in which even data that appears on public-facing profiles is off-limits unless accessed through tightly controlled channels.
Big Tech’s Broader Trend of Data Lock-In
LinkedIn isn’t alone in tightening control. Across the tech industry, major platforms are restricting access to data that was once openly available:
- X (formerly Twitter): Under Elon Musk, X restricted tweet visibility, blocked users who weren’t logged in and introduced API pricing that starts at $42,000 per month. This move effectively cut off access for developers, researchers and small businesses.
- Meta (Facebook/Instagram): In the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Meta severely limited its APIs and began aggressive legal action against unauthorized scraping. Today, most public-facing data is inaccessible without direct platform access.
- Google: Over time, Google has systematically limited or eliminated many free APIs, including raising the price of its Maps API by over 1,400 percent in 2018. Scraping search results now faces significant technical and legal barriers.
- Amazon: While Amazon hosts vast product and review data, its terms ban scraping. Without special agreements or paid services, even basic data access is restricted.
In each case, what was once accessible is now increasingly locked away, either by removing APIs, prohibitively high fees or legal threats. Public information is being enclosed behind corporate walls.
How Public Data Restrictions Impact Competition
When major platforms restrict access to publicly viewable data, the effects ripple across industries:
- Limited competition: Only the platform, and a few of its partners, can access and use key data sets, preventing others from building competing services.
- Higher costs for businesses: Many companies that previously relied on affordable or open data tools now face steep platform fees. Twitter’s API pricing, for example, has priced out most independent developers.
- Fewer consumer choices: Many useful apps, like third-party social media clients or independent analytics platforms, have been forced to shut down due to restricted data access. Innovation suffers, and users are left with fewer, often more expensive, options.
This isn’t about protecting user privacy: most of the data that these platforms are restricting is already publicly visible. Instead, it’s about who gets to control and monetize access to that data. In effect, control over public data is translating into market control. If only a few companies can access essential digital resources, they hold disproportionate power over pricing, innovation and service delivery.
Policy Responses and Legal Frameworks
Regulators are beginning to push back. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) now requires “gatekeeper” platforms to allow data portability and interoperability. This ensures businesses and consumers can move their data across services and avoid lock-in.
In the U.S., there’s growing concern about how exclusive data control can harm competition. While no federal law currently mandates open public data access, the Federal Trade Commission and lawmakers are exploring whether dominant platforms’ data practices are anti-competitive.
The courts, too, are weighing in. In hiQ vs. LinkedIn Corp, the court suggested that limiting access to public information may violate competition norms, even if it doesn’t breach hacking laws. This indicates that the court viewed such selective restrictions not as measures to protect user privacy, but as potential efforts to suppress competition.
Building a Case for Open Access to Public Data
The core issue isn’t just technical — it’s about fairness, competition and innovation. Publicly visible information should not be monopolized by the platforms that host it. To keep the digital economy open, we must:
- Reject artificial barriers: Publicly accessible data should remain accessible, regardless of the method used to retrieve it.
- Supporting smart regulation: Government policies should balance data protection and privacy with fair access and portability.
- Encouraging responsible scraping: When done ethically and within legal boundaries, web scraping can support research, business innovation, and consumer tools.
- Resisting data monopolies: If access to public data remains restricted, only dominant platforms will be able to build powerful data-driven products — raising prices, limiting innovation and reducing options.
Public data is a shared resource, not a private asset. If we allow Big Tech to decide who can access public information, we risk cementing their power over digital markets. The time to act is now, before the window for building open, competitive and innovative tools closes for good.
