The title of this post is misleading. The Court's decision related to HiQ's attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction. It's clearly an initial victory for hiQ in that the Court affirmed granting an injunction based on a significant likelihood that hiQ would ultimately prevail and that HiQ would suffer irreparable damage if the injunction was not granted. However, the Court never actually dealt with the merits of the case and, accordingly, stating that the case has precedential value is misleading. The Court itself noted:
"At this preliminary injunction stage, we do not resolve the
companies’ legal dispute definitively, nor do we address all
the claims and defenses they have pleaded in the district
court. Instead, we focus on whether hiQ has raised serious
questions on the merits of the factual and legal issues
presented to us, as well as on the other requisites for
preliminary relief."
"At this preliminary injunction stage, we do not resolve the companies’ legal dispute definitively, nor do we address all the claims and defenses they have pleaded in the district court. Instead, we focus on whether hiQ has raised serious questions on the merits of the factual and legal issues presented to us, as well as on the other requisites for preliminary relief."