Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 1 of 88
`
`Stanton R. Gallegos, OSB #160091
`StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com
`MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
`1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
`Portland, OR 97201
`Telephone: (503) 295-3085
`
`Neal J. Deckant *
`ndeckant@bursor.com
`Julia K. Venditti *
`jvenditti@bursor.com
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`Additional Counsel on Signature Page
`
`
`
`
`JULIE EASTERBROOK, on behalf of
`herself and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`EUGENE DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATION OF OREGON’S UNLAWFUL
`TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“UTPA”),
`ORS 646.608(1)(ttt) and ORS 646.608(1)(sss)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 2 of 88
`
`Plaintiff Julie Easterbrook (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on behalf of herself and all
`
`others similarly situated against Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn” or “Defendant”).
`
`Plaintiff makes the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and based
`
`upon information and belief, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to herself and her
`
`counsel, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a putative class action lawsuit against Defendant for engaging in an illegal
`
`“automatic renewal” scheme with respect to its paid subscription plans for LinkedIn-branded
`
`products and services that are available exclusively to consumers who enroll in Defendant’s
`
`auto-renewal programs (collectively, “LinkedIn Premium” or the “LP Subscriptions,”
`
`enumerated below) through its website at https://www.linkedin.com (the “LinkedIn Website”)
`
`and its mobile applications (the “LinkedIn Apps”) (together with LinkedIn Website, the
`
`“LinkedIn Platform”). Defendant is an international corporation that owns and operates the
`
`LinkedIn Platform, which is an online career-focused social media network of business
`
`professionals.1 Relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations, when consumers sign up for the LP
`
`Subscriptions through the LinkedIn Platform, Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a program
`
`that automatically renews customers’ LP Subscriptions from month-to-month or year-to-year and
`
`results in monthly or annual charges to the consumer’s credit card, debit card, or third-party
`
`payment account (collectively, the “Payment Method”). In doing so, Defendant fails to provide
`
`the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to and obtained from Oregon
`
`consumers under Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), ORS 646A.295, in direct
`
`
`1 The Platform is mainly used for professional networking and allows members (typically job
`seekers and employers) to “connect” to each other, e.g., by posting CVs and job openings.
`
`Page 2 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 3 of 88
`
`violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”), ORS 646.608(1)(ttt), and under
`
`Oregon’s Free Offer Law (“FOL”), ORS 646.644, in violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade
`
`Practices Act (“UTPA”), ORS 646.608(1)(sss).
`
`2.
`
`With over 830 million members in 200 countries and regions worldwide (and
`
`more than 188 million members in the United States), the LinkedIn Platform is the “world’s
`
`largest professional network.”2 While the basic features of the LinkedIn Platform are free to use,
`
`Defendant offers various products and features that are only available to paid LinkedIn Premium
`
`subscribers.3 Specifically, Defendant offers LinkedIn Premium in various different tiers, which
`
`include the following fee-based automatic renewal membership programs: Premium Career,
`
`Premium Business, Sales Navigator Professional, Recruiter Lite, and LinkedIn Learning
`
`(collectively, the “LP Subscriptions” or “LinkedIn Premium”).4
`
`3.
`
`Through the LinkedIn Platform, Defendant markets, advertises, and sells to
`
`consumers in Oregon and throughout the United States paid memberships to the LP
`
`Subscriptions. To sign up for one of Defendant’s paid LP Subscriptions through the LinkedIn
`
`
`2 LinkedIn Pressroom, “About Us,” available at https://news.linkedin.com/about-us#Statistics
`(last accessed Jul. 20, 2022).
`3 See Kinsta Blog, Mind-Blowing LinkedIn Statistics and Facts (2022) (Jun. 15, 2022),
`https://kinsta.com/blog/linkedin-statistics/ (last accessed Jul. 20, 2022) (“A total of 39% of
`LinkedIn users pay for LinkedIn Premium, which has four price tiers[.]”).
`4 Premium Career “gives you access to five InMail messages per month and in-demand videos, as
`well as the ability to see who viewed your profile, how many searches you’ve appeared in, and
`additional information on posted jobs (including salary).” Kinsta Blog, Mind-Blowing LinkedIn
`Statistics and Facts (Jun. 15, 2022). “The other tiers include essentially the same basic features
`but then go a step or two further.” Premium Business gives you additional information about
`businesses and unlimited people searches; Sales Navigator Pro gives you advanced search filters,
`access to different sales tools, and the ability to make notes on user profiles; and Recruiter Lite
`gives you guided search smart suggestions and more recruiter-focused tools.” Id. Note that
`LinkedIn Learning is included in all Premium subscriptions and, for the majority of the Class
`Period, was also offered as its own distinct subscription plan.
`
`Page 3 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 4 of 88
`
`Platform, customers must provide Defendant with their billing information and Defendant then
`
`automatically charges customers’ Payment Method as payments are due, typically on a monthly
`
`or annual basis. Defendant is able to unilaterally charge its customers renewal fees without their
`
`consent, as it is in possession of its customers’ billing information. Thus, Defendant has made
`
`the deliberate decision to bilk Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers on a monthly or
`
`yearly basis, absent their consent under the ARL, relying on consumer confusion and inertia to
`
`retain customers, combat consumer churn, and bolster its revenues.
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to the ARL, online retailers who offer automatically renewing
`
`subscriptions to Oregon consumers must: (i) provide the complete automatic renewal offer terms
`
`in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent prior to the
`
`purchase, see ORS 646A.295(1)(a); see also ORS 646A.293(5)(a)-(e) (setting forth definition of
`
`“offer terms” as used in ORS 646A.295); (ii) obtain consumers’ affirmative consent to the
`
`purchase prior to charging their Payment Methods in connection with the subscriptions, see ORS
`
`646A.295(1)(b); and (iii) provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer
`
`terms and identifies a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for consumers to cancel
`
`their subscriptions, see ORS 646A.295(1)(c), ORS 646A.295(2).
`
`5.
`
`Consumers purchasing the LP Subscriptions do so either by choosing a free trial
`
`that automatically converts into a paid subscription at the end of the trial period, or a “straight-to-
`
`paid” monthly or annual subscription that automatically renews in regular intervals at either the
`
`full standard recurring rate that Defendant ordinarily charges for the particular subscription plan,
`
`or at a promotional or discounted rate that remains static for a limited period of time and then
`
`automatically renews to the full standard rate. As will be discussed below, the enrollment
`
`process for the LP Subscriptions through the LinkedIn Platform uniformly violates each of the
`
`Page 4 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 5 of 88
`
`core requirements of the ARL.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, Defendant systematically violates the ARL by: (i) failing to present
`
`the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to
`
`the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement is fulfilled, in
`
`direct violation of Section 646A.295(1)(a) of the ARL; (ii) charging consumers’ Payment
`
`Method without first obtaining their affirmative consent to the agreement containing the
`
`automatic renewal offer terms, in direct violation of Section 646A.295(1)(b) of the ARL; and
`
`(iii) failing to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal offer terms and
`
`information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
`
`consumer, in direct violation of Section 646A.295(1)(c) of the ARL. The acknowledgment also
`
`fails to disclose a toll-free telephone number or describe another cost-effective, timely, and easy-
`
`to-use mechanism for cancellation, and in fact Defendant makes it exceedingly difficult and
`
`unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel their LP Subscriptions, in violation of Section
`
`646A.295(2) of the ARL.
`
`7.
`
`As a result, all goods, wares, merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff and the
`
`Class under the automatic renewal or continuous service agreements are deemed to be
`
`“unconditional gifts” under the ARL. ORS 646A.295(5).
`
`8.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf
`
`of all Oregon purchasers of any of Defendant’s LP Subscription offerings who, within the
`
`applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in this action,
`
`incurred unauthorized fees for the renewal of their LP Subscriptions. Based on Defendant’s
`
`unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks damages (including statutory and punitive damages),
`
`restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and any
`
`Page 5 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 6 of 88
`
`other relief as the Court may deem proper, for: (1) violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade
`
`Practices Act (the “UTPA”), ORS 646.608(1)(ttt), based on Defendant’s failure to comply with
`
`the ARL; and (2) violations of Oregon’s UTPA, ORS 646.608(1)(sss), based on Defendant’s
`
`failure to comply with the FOL.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Julie Easterbrook is a citizen of Oregon, residing in Myrtle Creek,
`
`Oregon. In or about January 2019, Ms. Easterbrook signed up for a free trial of Defendant’s
`
`monthly LinkedIn Premium Career subscription from Defendant’s website while in Oregon.
`
`During the enrollment process but before finally consenting to Defendant’s subscription offering,
`
`thereby completing the checkout process, Ms. Easterbrook provided her Payment Method
`
`information directly to Defendant. At the time Ms. Easterbrook enrolled in her LP Subscription
`
`program, Defendant did not disclose to Ms. Easterbrook all required automatic renewal offer
`
`terms associated with the subscription program or obtain Ms. Easterbrook’s affirmative consent
`
`to those terms. For instance, at the time of enrollment, Ms. Easterbrook was not aware that, upon
`
`the expiration of Ms. Easterbrook’s free trial subscription, Defendant would automatically
`
`convert her free trial into a paid, automatically renewing subscription. Further, after Ms.
`
`Easterbrook completed her initial order, Defendant sent Ms. Easterbrook an email receipt for her
`
`purchase of an LP Subscription (the “Acknowledgment Email”). However, the
`
`Acknowledgment Email, too, failed to provide Ms. Easterbrook with the complete automatic
`
`renewal terms that applied to Defendant’s offer, a description of Defendant’s full cancellation
`
`policy, or information regarding how to cancel Ms. Easterbrook’s LP Subscription in a manner
`
`capable of being retained by her. Ms. Easterbrook did not receive any other acknowledgement
`
`that contained the required information. As a result, Ms. Easterbrook was not placed on notice
`
`Page 6 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 7 of 88
`
`of several material terms associated with her LP Subscription. In particular, Ms. Easterbrook
`
`was not made aware of the fact that her LP Subscription would automatically convert to a paid
`
`subscription after the initial free trial period in the first place, or that it would continue to renew
`
`on a recurring basis thereafter and result in continuous monthly charges to her Payment Method
`
`unless and until she took action to successfully cancel her LP Subscription. Nor was she
`
`adequately informed of the recurring price to be charged upon renewal, the length of the renewal
`
`term or when the first charge would occur, or the complete cancellation policy associated with
`
`her LP Subscription, the most crucial aspects of which were missing from the Checkout Page and
`
`Acknowledgment Email. Nevertheless, on or around February 25, 2019, approximately one
`
`month after Ms. Easterbrook first signed up for her free trial LP Subscription in January 2019,
`
`Defendant automatically renewed Ms. Easterbrook’s LP Subscription and charged Ms.
`
`Easterbrook’s Payment Method in the amount of $29.99, the full standard monthly rate then-
`
`associated with the LP Subscription. Thereafter, Defendant continued to automatically renew
`
`Ms. Easterbrook’s LP Subscription on a monthly basis, charging her Payment Method an
`
`additional thirty-seven times, with the most recent charge occurring on or around March 29,
`
`2022, for a total of thirty-eight unauthorized charges amounting to $1,139.62 to Ms.
`
`Easterbrook’s Payment Method, including eight unauthorized charges amounting to $239.92
`
`within the last twelve months alone. Ms. Easterbrook did not learn of these subscription charges
`
`until approximately January or February of 2021, when she noticed the recurring monthly
`
`charges LinkedIn had posted to her Payment Method upon review of her monthly billing
`
`statement for unrelated reasons. Prior to learning of these charges, Ms. Easterbrook did not
`
`attempt to cancel her LP Subscriptions because she had no actual belief or reason to believe that
`
`the LP Subscription would automatically convert to a paid recurring subscription following
`
`Page 7 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 8 of 88
`
`expiration the free trial period, and thus she was not aware that cancellation was required in the
`
`first place. Subsequent to her discovery of the unauthorized charges, however, Ms. Easterbrook
`
`promptly attempted to cancel her LP Subscription in order to avoid incurring any additional
`
`future charges. In fact, Ms. Easterbrook attempted to cancel on at least three different occasions,
`
`with the first attempt occurring in or around January or February of 2021, within days (if not on
`
`the same day) of first learning of the unauthorized subscription charges. Ms. Easterbrook also
`
`attempted to cancel in or around May of 2021, and in or around late March or early April of
`
`2022. Ultimately, however, all but the last of Ms. Easterbrook’s cancellation attempts were
`
`unsuccessful, and she was unable to terminate her subscription prior to March 2022 due to
`
`Defendant’s confusing cancellation policy, the most crucial aspects of which were missing from
`
`the Checkout Page and Acknowledgment Email. Thus, Ms. Easterbrook’s first two attempts at
`
`cancellation were utterly ineffective. Defendant’s missing and/or incomplete disclosures on the
`
`Checkout Page and in the Acknowledgment Email for the LP Subscriptions, its failure to obtain
`
`Ms. Easterbrook’s affirmative consent to the offer terms associated with the LP Subscriptions
`
`before charging her Payment Method on a recurring basis, and its subsequent failure to issue any
`
`refund of the unauthorized charges she incurred from January 2019 to March 2022, are contrary
`
`to the ARL, which deems products provided in violation of the statute to be a gift to consumers.
`
`See ORS 646A.295; see also ORS 646.608(1)(ttt). Further, Defendant’s missing and/or
`
`incomplete disclosures on the Checkout Page and its failure to obtain Ms. Easterbrook’s
`
`affirmative consent to the free trial offer terms associated with the LP Subscriptions before
`
`charging her Payment Method on a recurring basis are contrary to the FOL, which is an
`
`“unlawful practice subject to enforcement and penalty under” the UTPA. See ORS 646.644(6);
`
`see also ORS 646.608(1)(sss). Had Defendant complied with the ARL and FOL,
`
`Page 8 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 9 of 88
`
`Ms. Easterbrook would have been able to read and review the automatic renewal terms offer on
`
`the Checkout Page prior to purchase and/or in the Acknowledgment Email prior to renewal, and
`
`she would have not subscribed to LinkedIn Premium at all or on the same terms, or she would
`
`have cancelled her LP Subscription earlier, i.e., prior to the expiration of the initial subscription
`
`period and/or any subsequent renewal term. Thus, as a direct result of Defendant’s violations of
`
`the ARL and FOL, Ms. Easterbrook suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injury.5
`
`10.
`
`Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 1000 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA
`
`94085. LinkedIn is an international company that offers various products and services to assist
`
`in career development and professional networking. Relevant here, Defendant owns and
`
`operates the LP Subscriptions, which it markets to consumers through the LinkedIn Website and
`
`App. Defendant is also responsible for the promotion, advertisement, and/or marketing of the LP
`
`Subscriptions, and it owns and operates the LinkedIn Website and App, where it markets and
`
`sells the LP Subscriptions. Defendant sells – and, at all times during the Class Period, sold – the
`
`LP Subscriptions in Oregon and has done business throughout Oregon and the United States. In
`
`connection with the LP Subscriptions, Defendant made automatic renewal or continuous service
`
`offers to consumers in Oregon and throughout the United States via the LinkedIn Website and/or
`
`App during the Class Period.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add different or additional
`
`defendants, including without limitation any officer, director, employee, supplier, or distributor
`
`
`5 Indeed, on each of the thirty-eight occasions that Ms. Easterbrook incurred fees in connection
`with her LP Subscription between January 2019 and March 2022, she suffered an additional,
`independently actionable injury as a direct result of Defendant’s conduct in the violation of each
`the ARL and the FOL.
`Page 9 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 10 of 88
`
`of Defendant who has knowingly and willfully aided, abetted, and/or conspired in the false and
`
`deceptive conduct alleged herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A),
`
`as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), because this case is a class
`
`action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed class are in excess of
`
`$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, there are over 100 members of the putative class,
`
`and Plaintiff, as well as most members of the proposed class, is a citizen of a state different from
`
`Defendant.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff resides in
`
`Oregon and submits to the jurisdiction of the Court, and because Defendant has, at all times
`
`relevant hereto, systematically and continually conducted business in Oregon, including within
`
`this District, and/or intentionally availed itself of the benefits and privileges of the Oregon
`
`consumer market through the promotion, marketing, and sale of its products and/or services to
`
`residents within this District and throughout Oregon. Additionally, Plaintiff purchased her LP
`
`Subscription from Defendant while in Oregon.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this Court is the proper venue for this action
`
`because a substantial part of the events, omissions, and acts giving rise to the claims herein
`
`occurred in this District. Also, Plaintiff resides in this District and purchased Defendant’s LP
`
`Subscription in this District. Moreover, Defendant systematically conducts business in this
`
`District and throughout the State of Oregon, and it distributed, advertised, and sold the LP
`
`Subscriptions to Plaintiff and Class Members in this State and District. The Eugene Division is
`
`the appropriate venue because, as explained below, a substantial part of the events giving rise to
`
`Page 10 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 11 of 88
`
`the claims occurred in this division.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`
`15.
`
`Background On The Subscription e-Commerce Market
`
`The e-commerce subscription model is a business model in which retailers
`
`provide ongoing goods or services “in exchange for regular payments from the customer.”6
`
`Subscription e-commerce services target a wide range of customers and cater to a variety of
`
`specific interests. Given the prevalence of online and e-commerce retailers, subscription e-
`
`commerce has grown rapidly in popularity in recent years. Indeed, the “subscription economy
`
`has grown more than 400% over the last 8.5 years as consumers have demonstrated a growing
`
`preference for access to subscription services[.]”7 Analysts at UBS predict that the subscription
`
`economy will expand into a $1.5 trillion market by 2025, up from $650 billion in 2020.8 That
`
`constitutes an average annual growth rate of 18%, which makes the subscription economy “one
`
`of the fastest-growing industries globally.”9
`
`
`6 Core DNA, How to Run an eCommerce Subscription Service: The Ultimate Guide (May 19,
`2020), https://www.coredna.com/blogs/ecommerce-subscription-services.
`7 Business Insider, Taco Bell’s taco subscription is rolling out nationwide — here’s how to get it
`(Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.businessinsider.com/taco-bell-subscription-launching-across-the-
`country-2022-1 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`8 See UBS, Investing in digital subscriptions (Mar. 10, 2021),
`https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealth-management/our-
`approach/marketnews/article.1525238.html (“[A]t close to USD 650 billion in 2020, we expect
`the subscription economy to expand into a USD 1.5 trillion market by 2025, implying an average
`annual growth rate of 18%.”). See also Subscribed, UBS Declares: It’s Worth Investing in the
`Subscription Economy (Apr. 17, 2021), https://www.subscribed.com/read/news-and-
`editorial/ubs-declares-its-worth-investing-in-the-subscription-economy; Business 2 Community,
`The Subscription Economy Is Booming Right Now. But Are You Reaping the Full Benefits? (Oct.
`7, 2021), https://www.business2community.com/ecommerce/the-subscription-economy-is-
`booming-right-now-but-are-you-reaping-the-full-benefits-02434851.
`9 UBS, Investing in digital subscriptions (Mar. 10, 2021), supra (“[Growth] was seen across
`many areas, including e-commerce, video streaming, gaming, cloud-based applications, etc.”);
`
`Page 11 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 12 of 88
`
`16.
`
`LinkedIn is an international company and employment-oriented online platform
`
`that operates via Defendant’s website and mobile application. The company was founded in
`
`December of 2002 and incorporated in Delaware in March 2003.10 On March 5, 2003, the
`
`LinkedIn Platform was officially launched, and two years later, in March of 2005, Defendant
`
`adopted the subscription model, placing its premium digital content behind a paywall with the
`
`launch of early versions of LinkedIn Premium.11 LinkedIn achieved its first month of
`
`profitability in March 2006,12 launched a mobile version of the LinkedIn website (i.e., the
`
`LinkedIn App) in February 2008,13 and “completed [its] initial public offering in May 2011[.]”14
`
`LinkedIn’s “Class A common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (‘NYSE’) under
`
`
`see also Juniper Research, Subscriptions For Physical Goods To Overtake Digital Subscriptions
`By 2025; Growing To Over $263bn Globally (Oct. 12, 2020),
`https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/subscriptions-for-physical-goods-to-overtake
`(acknowledging “the significant lead the digital sector has had in th[e] area[ of digital service
`subscriptions]”).
`10 See LinkedIn Corporation, 2015 Annual Report (Form 10-K), available at
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1271024/000127102416000035/a20151231-
`10xkdocument.htm.
`11 See id. (“Our Premium Subscription services target small- and medium-sized enterprises and
`professional organizations, individual members and business groups in larger enterprises. …
`These subscriptions bundles are sold at different price points. Key features found in the
`subscription bundles include: … Open Profile[;] … Top Keyword Suggestions[;] … Larger
`Searching Listing[;] … Premium Search[;] … Saved Search Alerts[;] … Who’s Viewed Your
`Profile[;] … How You Rank[;] … [and] InMail Messages.”).
`12 See Ann Byers, Reid Hoffman and Linkedin, The Rosen Publishing Group (15 July 2013), at
`2003.
`13 See LinkedIn Official Blog, Announcing LinkedIn Mobile (includes an iPhone version) (Feb.
`24, 2008), https://blog.linkedin.com/2008/02/24/linkedin-mobile-2; CIO, New LinkedIn Apps:
`All Work, No Play (Oct. 29, 2008), https://www.cio.com/article/2432651/new-linkedin-apps--all-
`work--no-play.html.
`14 See https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1271024/000127102416000035/a20151231-
`10xkdocument.htm.
`
`Page 12 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 13 of 88
`
`the symbol ‘LNKD.’”15 In August 2011, LinkedIn revamped its mobile applications.16 At the
`
`time, mobile page views of the application were increasing roughly 400% year over year
`
`according to CEO Jeff Weiner. Subsequently, on December 8, 2016, Microsoft acquired
`
`LinkedIn for $196 a share (a total value of $26.2 billion, or $60 per user).17 Soon after
`
`LinkedIn’s acquisition by Microsoft, Defendant’s new desktop version was introduced in a
`
`“complete overhaul of [LinkedIn’s] technology architecture.”18 The new version was meant to
`
`make the user experience “seamless across mobile and desktop.”19
`
`17.
`
`Through LinkedIn Premium, Defendant provides subscribers with different tiers
`
`of access to, among other things, InMail messages, the ability to see who has viewed a profile,
`
`and interview preparation content. Additionally, in “February 2017, following the company’s
`
`acquisition by Microsoft, LinkedIn added new features to its LinkedIn Premium subscription
`
`plans,” such as “educational courses … on LinkedIn Learning, an online MOOC service the
`
`company repackaged in September 2016 after its 2015 acquisition of Lynda.com.”20
`
`18.
`
`The production, sale, and distribution of subscription-based products and services
`
`is a booming industry that has exploded in popularity over the past few years. According to
`
`Forbes, “[t]he subscription e-commerce market has grown by more than 100% percent a year
`
`
`
`15 Id.
`16 Forbes, LinkedIn Revamps iPhone, Android Apps, Launches HTML5 App (Aug. 16, 2011),
`available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2011/08/16/linkedin-revamps-iphone-
`android-apps-launches-html5-app/?sh=72fe4c802720.
`17 See Wall Street Journal, Microsoft to Acquire LinkedIn for $26.2 Billion (June 13, 2016),
`available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-to-acquire-linkedin-in-deal-valued-at-26-2-
`billion-1465821523.
`18 LinkedIn Pressroom, Introducing the New LinkedIn Desktop (Jan. 19, 2017), available at
`https://news.linkedin.com/2017/introducing-the-new-linkedin-desktop.
`19 Id.
`20 https://www.cio.com/article/2877153/why-linkedin-premium-is-worth-the-money.html.
`
`Page 13 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 14 of 88
`
`over the past five years, with the largest retailers generating more than $2.6B in sales in 2016, up
`
`from $57.0M in 2011.”21 Following 2016, market growth within the industry increased
`
`exponentially, reaching $650 billion in 2020.22 “As such, the financials of companies with
`
`subscription business models[] … improved dramatically in 2020 thanks to limited revenue
`
`volatility and strong cash flow generation.”23 Thus, “[t]he share prices of most subscription
`
`companies have performed well in recent years.”24
`
`19.
`
`The expansion of the subscription e-commerce market shows no signs of slowing.
`
`“We’re now in the subscriptions era, and the pandemic is accelerating its takeover. During the
`
`COVID-19 lockdowns, many digital-based subscription business models fared well due to their
`
`promise of convenience and strong business continuity.”25 According to The Washington Post,
`
`“[s]ubscriptions boomed during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans largely stuck in
`
`shutdown mode flocked to digital entertainment[.] … The subscription economy was on the rise
`
`before the pandemic, but its wider and deeper reach in nearly every industry is expected to last,
`
`even after the pandemic subsides in the United States.”26
`
`
`21 Forbes, The State Of The Subscription Economy, 2018 (Mar. 4, 2018),
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2018/03/04/the-state-of-the-subscription-economy-
`2018/#6ad8251a53ef.
`22 See UBS, Investing in digital subscriptions (Mar. 10, 2021), available at
`https://www.ubs.com/global/en/wealth-management/our-
`approach/marketnews/article.1525238.html.
`23 Id.
`24 Id.
`25 Id.
`26 Washington Post, Everything’s becoming a subscription, and the pandemic is partly to blame
`(June 1, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/01/subscription-boom-
`pandemic/ (noting that “e-commerce and entertainment subscriptions to sites such as Netflix,
`Hulu and Disney Plus made headlines during the pandemic for soaring growth”).
`
`Page 14 - COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 1 Filed 07/29/22 Page 15 of 88
`
`20.
`
`However, as the Washington Post has noted, there are downsides associated with
`
`the subscription-based business model.27 While the subscription e-commerce market has low
`
`barriers and is thus easy to enter, it is considerably more difficult for retailers to dominate the
`
`market due to the “highly competitive prices and broad similarities among the leading
`
`players.”28 In particular, retailers struggle with the fact that “[c]hurn rates are high, [] and
`
`consumers quickly cancel services that don’t deliver superior end-to-end experiences.”29 Yet,
`
`retailers have also recognized that, where the recurring nature of the service, billing practices, or
`
`cancellation process is unclear or complicated, “consumers may lose interest but be too harried
`
`to take the extra step of canceling their membership[s].”30 As these companies have realized,
`
`“[t]he real money is in the inertia.”31 As a result, “[m]any e-commerce sites work with third-
`
`party vendors to implement more manipulative designs.”32 That is, to facilitate consumer
`
`inertia, a number of companies engaging in subscription-based e-commerce, including
`
`Defendant, “are now taking advantage of subscriptions in order to trick users into signing up for
`
`
`27 Washington Post, Little-box retailing: Subscription services offer new possibilities to
`consumers, major outlets (Apr. 7, 2014),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tktktktk/2014/04/07/f68135b6-a92b-11e3-
`8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html.
`28 McKinsey & Company, Thinking inside the subscription box: New research on e-commerce
`consumers (Feb. 2018), https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-
`telecommunications/our-insights/thinking-inside-the-subscription-box-new-research-on-
`ecommerce-consumers#0.
`29 Id.
`30 Washington Post, Little-box retailing: Subscription services offer new possibilities to
`consumers, major outlets (Apr. 7, 2014),
`https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tktktktk/2014/04/07/f68135b6-a92b-11e3-
`8d62-419db477a0e6_story.html.
`31 Id.
`32 Business Insider, A new study from Princeton reveals how shopping websites use 'dark
`patterns' to trick you into buying things you didn't actually want (Jun. 25, 2019),
`htt