The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into digital platforms has grown exponentially in recent years, offering not only improved efficiencies and automation but also deeply personalized user experiences. AI technologies now drive everything from recommendation algorithms to conversational agents, significantly shaping how users interact with digital environments. However, these benefits have also brought about growing concerns over data privacy and the ethical use of personal information.
One prominent example of this tension between innovation and privacy emerged with LinkedIn’s recent legal challenges. Although the lawsuit, which alleged that LinkedIn had used private messages from premium users to train its AI models without proper consent, was ultimately dismissed in January 2025, it drew considerable attention to the potential misuse of user data and the evolving legal boundaries in the age of AI.
Private Messages and AI Training
In August 2024, LinkedIn introduced a controversial change to its privacy settings. Premium users were allegedly automatically enrolled into a program that permitted the platform to use their private messages, particularly those sent via the InMail feature, for the purpose of training AI models. This policy adopted an opt-out approach, meaning users would need to take proactive steps to prevent their messages from being included in AI training datasets. Many users were unaware of the setting, prompting public outcry and sparking legal action. Plaintiffs in the resulting class-action lawsuit claimed that the move constituted a violation of the Stored Communications Act and was also a breach of LinkedIn’s contractual and fiduciary obligations to its users. Damages sought included $1,000 per user, in addition to compensation for breaches of contract and violations of Californian competition laws.
The data at the heart of the controversy was particularly sensitive. InMail messages are often used for job inquiries, professional collaboration, and confidential networking communications. The idea that such content could be ingested by AI systems without explicit user approval triggered concerns across various industries. Critics feared that AI models trained on sensitive data could internalize and later regurgitate proprietary or private information, inadvertently exposing it to third parties or even competitors. In light of growing scrutiny, LinkedIn temporarily suspended its AI data-sharing practices in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and across the European Economic Community—regions known for stricter data privacy regulations under frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Dismissal of the Lawsuit
Despite these actions, LinkedIn remained firm in its stance. Company representatives, including Vice President and lawyer Sarah Wight, denied the central allegations of the lawsuit, asserting unequivocally that private messages were never used for training AI. Ultimately, in January 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of refiling but bringing the immediate proceedings to a close. Still, the incident had already amplified the public conversation around AI, transparency, and consent in digital platforms.
This is not an isolated scenario. The broader tech industry has seen a wave of similar controversies. Meta Platforms, for instance, updated its privacy policy to permit the use of public user content for training its AI systems. While some platforms introduced opt-out mechanisms, the procedures for doing so were often convoluted and poorly communicated. Critics argue that such practices effectively sideline the principle of informed consent. In some cases, even opt-out choices were limited to specific regions, leaving many users without any real control over how their data was used.
These developments reflect a deepening divide between corporate interests in advancing AI capabilities and societal expectations around data ethics and privacy. Governments and regulatory bodies are beginning to take notice, with some jurisdictions considering new legislation to ensure clearer guidelines and stricter enforcement on how user data can be collected and processed for machine learning and AI.
User Data Impact on AI Training
The use of user data to train AI models undeniably enables significant technological progress. Systems become more efficient, products more intuitive, and services more tailored to individual users. For example, AI trained on authentic user dialogues can improve natural language processing, enhance customer service bots, and even reduce biases by drawing from diverse data inputs.
One could also make a case that in a professional context, for a platform like LinkedIn, AI-enhanced platforms can connect job seekers with relevant opportunities more effectively and automate administrative tasks that would otherwise require significant manual effort.
Risks Inherent to This Training Approach
However, these perceived benefits come with notable risks and problems. The unauthorized or poorly disclosed use of private data erodes user trust and raises serious ethical and legal questions. Confidential information, once used in AI training, is difficult—if not impossible—to fully extract from a model. This introduces risks of data leakage, misuse, or unintended replication in AI-generated content. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in data practices can create a perception of manipulation, where users feel they are being exploited rather than served by the platforms they rely on.
Another concern is the disproportionate burden placed on users to understand and manage complex privacy settings. Not all users possess the technical literacy to navigate these options, and companies often fail to communicate data usage policies in clear and accessible language. This can result in a system where consent is assumed rather than explicitly given, undermining fundamental principles of data protection.
Looking Forward
LinkedIn’s now-dismissed lawsuit offers a compelling case study on the evolving dynamics of AI, privacy, and user trust. While the legal proceedings have ended for now, the broader implications of the controversy remain highly relevant. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in our digital experiences, the importance of robust data governance cannot be overstated. Companies must move beyond minimum legal compliance to adopt ethical frameworks that center transparency, accountability, and respect for user autonomy.
Clear and accessible privacy settings, public disclosures about data use, and mechanisms for meaningful user consent are essential components of trustworthy AI deployment. Additionally, regulatory oversight must evolve in tandem with technology to ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of individual rights. The LinkedIn case serves as a reminder that in the digital age, trust is both fragile and foundational—and maintaining it requires diligence, dialogue, and a shared commitment to ethical progress.
[mailerlite_form form_id=3]
Sapiens Forward 