Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Update:
- A California federal judge declined to dismiss an amended class action lawsuit claiming LinkedIn gave potential rivals access to private user data if they promised not to compete with the company.
- The judge determined the amended complaint adequately accused LinkedIn of engaging in anticompetitive conduct with the alleged agreements.
- The allegations are part of broader allegations that LinkedIn monopolized the professional social networking market and used the monopoly to allow it to overcharge its Premium subscribers.
- A judge dismissed an original version of the class action lawsuit in March 2023, ruling the claims came too long after an anticompetitive agreement was allegedly made between 2013 and 2016.
LinkedIn monopoly class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: Todd Crowder, Kevin Schulte and Garrick Vance filed a class action lawsuit against LinkedIn.
- Why: Crowder, Schulte and Vance claim LinkedIn has monopolized the professional social networking market and is overcharging its subscribers.
- Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
(Jan. 18, 2022)
LinkedIn has unlawfully monopolized the professional social networking market and is working with Facebook to divide markets, a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Todd Crowder, Kevin Schulte, and Garrick Vance claim LinkedIn has used its position to overcharge its Premium subscribers, while potentially working with Facebook to help the company maintain a monopoly of its own.
The plaintiffs want to represent a Class of all persons, entities, and corporations who purchased a LinkedIn Premium subscription or otherwise paid the company for upgraded account features since Jan. 13, 2018.
The plaintiffs claim LinkedIn uses “sophisticated data acquisition” in order to “maximize user attention and revenues.”
LinkedIn, Facebook colluded for control of professional networking, claims class action
“By 2015, LinkedIn’s subscription business was protected by a powerful barrier to entry, which was the net sum of LinkedIn’s data centralization and aggregation, its machine learning and AI infrastructure, and the inferred data it produced,” states the class action lawsuit.
This combination of knowledge is known as LinkedIn’s Data, Machine Learning, and Inference Barrier to Entry (DMIBE), according to the class action.
The plaintiffs claim LinkedIn likely reached a deal with Facebook around that same time, in order to maintain its monopoly in the professional social networking market, since Facebook never decided to enter into the space, despite building a product and taking steps to do so.
Facebook also has entered a number of different markets starting in 2016, including photo sharing, video sharing streaming, messaging, marketplace, and payment markets, among others, according to the class action lawsuit.
“The only market (Facebook) did not even attempt to enter was the one LinkedIn controlled—a market where users paid expensive subscriptions out of pocket for professional social networking,” states the class action lawsuit.
The DMIBE ultimately helped LinkedIn reach a deal to become acquired by Microsoft for $26.5 billion in 2016, which, the class action lawsuit alleges, allowed it to strengthen its hold on the professional social networking market even further.
“At the time of this Complaint, the DMIBE represents a near-insurmountable, and growing, barrier to meaningful entry in the professional social networking market, let alone entry at sufficient scale to effectively check LinkedIn’s pricing and subscription terms,” states the class action lawsuit.
The plaintiffs argue that, since its Microsoft acquisition, LinkedIn has engaged in “affirmative anticompetitive conduct” which has strengthened its DMIBE and allowed it to reduce the choice of its customers and charge inflate premium subscription prices.
“This conduct has prevented — indeed, effectively precluded — entry by others into the professional social networking market, insulating prices from competition,” states the class action lawsuit.
The plaintiffs claim LinkedIn is in violation of federal antitrust laws. They are demanding a jury trial and requesting permanent injunctive relief along with actual and treble damages for themselves and all Class Members.
Earlier this month, a judge ruled Facebook must face amended claims made by the Federal Trade Commission that the company monopolized the social networking market.
More than 700 million LinkedIn users may have seen their information exposed in a pair of data security incidents this summer.
Have you purchased a LinkedIn Premium subscription? See if you qualify to join a LinkedIn Premium subscriber data gggregation class action Investigation here (links to paid advertising).
The plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Dunne, Yavar Bathaee, Edward M. Grauman and Andrew C. Wolinsky of Bathaee Dunne LLP.
The LinkedIn monopoly class action lawsuit is Crowder, et al. v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 5:22-cv-00237, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
6 thoughts onLinkedIn monopoly class action escapes dismissal
Add me pls.
I paid 57% more for a monthly billing for premium LinkedIn and was never told annual billing was an option with such a huge savings. Five monthly payments equivalent to annual amount but failed to convert to annual or offer it.
LinkedIn refused full reimbursement for excess payments.
Please add me i have the receipt and thought the price was ridiculous. I was even scammed through the site.
Add me
Add me please, the fee was ridiculous
Add me