In the ever-escalating battle over digital borders, two apparel giants have unleashed a legal salvo against a North Carolina software firm accused of pilfering their trade secrets through aggressive web scraping. Represented by powerhouse Sidley Austin, the plaintiffs allege the defendant built its empire on stolen product data, catalogs, and pricing intel—highlighting a surge in data scraping lawsuits 2025 that’s reshaping e-commerce and IP enforcement.
This week’s filings in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina mark a bold escalation in the fight against automated data harvesting. As online retail booms to $1.2 trillion annually in the U.S., per Census Bureau figures, these claims underscore how scraping tools—once niche—now fuel competitive sabotage, drawing BigLaw firepower and potential multimillion-dollar penalties.
The Plaintiffs Strike Back: Wholesale Suppliers Draw the Line
The drama centers on two unnamed wholesale clothing suppliers (plaintiffs A and B, per court docs), who claim the defendant—a Raleigh-based shopping software developer—systematically scraped their websites from 2022 onward. Using bots and scripts, the firm allegedly vacuumed up proprietary details like inventory lists, supplier contacts, and real-time pricing, then repurposed it into a rival platform for e-commerce buyers.
Key details from the September 18, 2025, complaint: The scraping bypassed technical barriers, including CAPTCHA hurdles and rate limits, violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and state computer trespass laws. Plaintiffs assert the stolen data enabled the defendant to undercut deals, poach clients, and flood markets with knockoff listings—resulting in $5 million+ in lost revenue each.
Background context: Web scraping exploded post-2020, with tools like Bright Data powering 70% of data analytics firms, per a 2025 Gartner report. But courts are cracking down; the Ninth Circuit’s 2022 hiQ Labs reversal (siding with scrapers on public data) hasn’t stopped suits over protected info. Sidley Austin, fresh off a $100 million CFAA win for a media client last year, brings its e-discovery muscle to parse terabytes of server logs as evidence.
The suppliers, mid-tier players in sustainable fashion, discovered the breach via anomalous traffic spikes and competitor bids mirroring their catalogs. They ceased operations with the defendant in 2024, but the damage lingers—alleged trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) seeks injunctions, damages, and attorney fees.
Sidley Austin’s Playbook: From Tech Counseling to Courtroom Hammer
Sidley Austin, a 2,300-lawyer behemoth with $3 billion in 2024 revenue, isn’t new to data wars. Its Privacy and Cybersecurity practice—ranked Band 1 by Chambers USA—handles everything from GDPR audits to scraping defenses. Here, partners from the Charlotte and Chicago offices lead, filing under theories of trespass to chattels, unjust enrichment, and Lanham Act false designation.
The firm’s angle: Emphasize the “harmful access” prong of the CFAA, post-Van Buren v. U.S. (2021), which narrowed “unauthorized” to code-based hacks—not mere terms-of-service violations. Sidley’s complaint cites server overloads causing 20% downtime for plaintiffs’ sites, bolstering economic injury claims.
This suit aligns with Sidley’s 2025 docket: They defended a retailer against a $50 million scraping claim in February, securing dismissal on fair use grounds. Now on offense, expect aggressive discovery—subpoenas for the defendant’s code repos and IP addresses—to trace the bots.
Defendant’s Defense? Early Silence, But Precedents Loom
The shopping software company, described as a SaaS provider for B2B marketplaces, hasn’t responded yet—standard for a fresh filing. Sources close to the case whisper a motion to dismiss, arguing public-facing data isn’t protectable and scraping falls under First Amendment data compilation rights.
Expert opinions vary. Paul Greene, head of Harter Secrest & Emery’s data security practice (unaffiliated), told Law.com: “It certainly could become a big issue for the company—scraping’s gray area is shrinking fast with AI feeding on it.” On the flip side, IP litigator Emily Chen of Cooley LLP notes: “If the data was truly proprietary, DTSA’s inevitable disclosure doctrine could lock in big wins for plaintiffs.”
Public reactions? Sparse so far, but X threads under #DataScrapingLawsuit spiked 150% post-filing, with e-comm devs venting: “Bots built my biz—now they’re the noose?” A Reddit r/legaladvice post from a similar victim garnered 5K upvotes, urging “Sidley-level muscle” for retaliation.
Broader Impacts: E-Commerce Shake-Up and Legal Precedents
For U.S. businesses, this suit ripples wide. Economically, it threatens the $20 billion scraping industry—tools like Octoparse face compliance overhauls, hiking costs 30% per Forrester. Retailers may bolt sites behind paywalls or AI detectors, slowing innovation but curbing theft.
Lifestyle? Shoppers could see pricier goods as suppliers pass legal tabs; think 5-10% markups on apparel amid 2025’s inflation tick. Politically, it amps FTC scrutiny—Chair Lina Khan’s July 2025 scraping guidelines echo here, pushing for “do-not-scrape” registries.
Tech tie-in: With AI models trained on scraped data (hello, OpenAI suits), this bolsters calls for federal IP reform. Sports angle? Even NBA teams scrape ticket data for pricing—imagine league-wide CFAA probes.
For defendants, it’s a wake-up: Audit your crawlers or risk Sidley-style takedowns.
Case Closed? Not Yet—Watch for Motions and Settlements
Sidley Austin’s data scraping claims against this shopping software upstart crystallize 2025’s IP frontier: What was once free-for-all foraging now invites federal firepower. With injunctions on the table, a quick settlement looms—averaging $2-5 million in peer cases—but a CFAA trial could set e-comm rules for years.
Outlook? As discovery digs in by Q1 2026, expect more suits from Sidley’s rolodex. For now, webmasters: Fortify your fences. Data’s the new oil—don’t let bots siphon yours.