Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 41
`
`
`
`Brad S. Daniels, OSB No. 025178
`brad.daniels@stoel.com
`Rachel C. Lee, OSB No. 102944
`rachel.lee@stoel.com
`Samantha K. Sondag, OSB No. 154244
`samantha.sondag@stoel.com
`STOEL RIVES LLP
`760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
`Portland, OR 97205
`Telephone: 503.224.3380
`Facsimile: 503.220.2480
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`EUGENE DIVISION
`
`JULIE EASTERBROOK, on behalf of
`herself and all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-01108-MC
`
`DEFENDANT LINKEDIN
`CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 41
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`LOCAL RULE 7-1 CERTIFICATION ...........................................................................................1
`
`MOTION..........................................................................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW ...........................................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`LinkedIn and LinkedIn Premium ............................................................................ 3
`
`LinkedIn Premium Subscription Process ................................................................ 4
`
`LinkedIn Premium Cancellation Information ......................................................... 8
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims .......................................................................... 9
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. LINKEDIN’S DISCLOSURES COMPLIED WITH THE ARL ..................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`LinkedIn Satisfied the Disclosure Requirements of ORS 646A.295(1) ............... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`LinkedIn Clearly and Conspicuously Disclosed the Required
`Information ............................................................................................... 12
`
`The Disclosures Were in Visual Proximity to the Request
`for Consent ................................................................................................ 16
`
`LinkedIn Obtained Plaintiff’s Affirmative Consent ............................................. 17
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege a Violation of the ARL Acknowledgment
`Requirement .......................................................................................................... 19
`
`The Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege an Ineffective Cancellation
`Process .................................................................................................................. 20
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FOL CLAIM FAILS ................................................................................ 22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`LinkedIn Disclosed the Information Required by the FOL .................................. 22
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Plausibly Allege a Cancellation Violation ................................. 25
`
`Page i
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 41
`
`VI.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED.............................................................. 26
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Relevant Legal Principles ..................................................................................... 26
`
`The Face of the Complaint Demonstrates That Plaintiff’s Claims Are
`Time-Barred .......................................................................................................... 28
`
`VII. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ALLEGE THAT SHE PURCHASED
`LINKEDIN PREMIUM AS PART OF A CONSUMER TRANSACTION .................... 30
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 41
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accident Care Specialists of Portland, Inc. v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,
`No. 3:11-CV-01033-MO..........................................................................................................31
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .....................................................................................................11, 23, 32
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................11, 23
`
`Brooks v. BC Custom Constr., Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-00717-YY, 2019 WL 3763769 (D. Or. May 21, 2019) .........................................6
`
`Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
`656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................26, 27, 28
`
`Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
`No. CV 09-517-PHX-JAT, 2009 WL 3157160 (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2009) ..............................27
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................18
`
`Egbukichi v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
`184 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Or. 2016) ..........................................................................................27
`
`Fowler v. Cooley,
`239 Or. App. 338, 245 P.3d 155 (2010)...................................................................................31
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................12, 21
`
`Gross v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. C 12-00154 CRB, 2012 WL 3116158 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2012) .....................................20
`
`Hall v. Time, Inc.,
`No. SACV 19-01153-CJC, 2020 WL 2303088 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020),
` aff’d, 857 F. App’x 385 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................15, 17, 18
`
`Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t Quality,
`316 Or. App. 186, 504 P.3d 15 (2021).....................................................................................26
`
`Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey,
`53 Or. App. 586, 633 P.2d 6 (1981).........................................................................................30
`
`Page iii - DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 5 of 41
`
`Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co.,
`614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................................................26
`
`Knight v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.,
`No. 3:13-CV-01347-BR, 2013 WL 6530939 (D. Or. Dec. 12, 2013) .....................................11
`
`Lazy Y Ranch Ltd., v. Behrens,
`546 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................12
`
`Lundbom v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-02187-IM, 2020 WL 2736419 (D. Or. May 26, 2020) .................................15, 18
`
`McCulloch v. Price Waterhouse LLP,
`157 Or. App. 237, 971 P.2d 4140 (1998).................................................................................26
`
`Mendoza v. Lithia Motors, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-CV-01264-AA, 2019 WL 1440260 (D. Or. Mar 30, 2019) ......................................16
`
`Meyer v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co.,
`342 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................28
`
`Meyer v. Mittal,
`No. 3:21-CV-00621, 2021 WL 5397472 (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2021) ...........................................30
`
`Morris v. Dental Care Today, P.C.,
`306 Or. App. 259, 473 P.3d 1137 (2020)...........................................................................26, 28
`
`Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`384 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2019), aff’d, 815 F. App’x 612 (2d Cir. 2020)......................18
`
`Orluck v. Illinois Tool Works,
`No. 3:20-CV-01947-YY, 2021 WL 3473477 (D. Or. Aug. 6, 2021) ......................................32
`
`Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`358 Or. 88, 361 P.3d 3 (2015) ...........................................................................................11, 26
`
`Phillips v. Lithia Motors, Inc.,
`No. 03-3109-HO, 2006 WL 1113608 (D. Or. Apr. 27, 2006) .................................................27
`
`Pulse Health LLC v. Akers Biosciences, Inc.,
`No. 3:16-CV-01919-HZ, 2017 WL 1371272 (D. Or. Apr. 14, 2017) .....................................30
`
`Rocha v. Bank of Am., NA,
`No. CV 12-1215-GW(JCx), 2012 WL 1267883 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012) ...........................27,
`
`Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer,
`753 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Page iv - DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 6 of 41
`
`Rutter v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-04077-HSG, 2022 WL 1443336 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022).............................15, 20
`
`Sawyer v. ReconTrust Co.,
`No. CV-11-292-ST, 2011 WL 2619517 (D. Or. May 27, 2011) .............................................33
`
`Searle v. Exley Exp., Inc.,
`278 Or. 535, 564 P.2d 1054 (1977) .............................................................................31, 32, 33
`
`State v. Gaines,
`346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) .........................................................................................16
`
`Stoss v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. 3:13-CV-01068-AC, 2014 WL 585946 (D. Or. Feb. 14, 2014) .......................................33
`
`Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc.,
`3:17-CV-01791-YY, 2021 WL 4239988 (D. Or. Aug 13, 2021) ............................................13
`
`Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc.,
`985 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2021) ...........................................................................................23, 32
`
`Statutes
`
`Arizona Consumer Fraud Act ........................................................................................................27
`
`Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) ............................................................................ passim
`
`Oregon’s Free Offer law (FOL) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`ORS 618.236(2) .............................................................................................................................17
`
`ORS 646.295(2) .............................................................................................................................11
`
`ORS 646.605(6)(a) ...............................................................................................................3, 30, 32
`
`ORS 646.608(1)(ttt) .................................................................................................................11, 12
`
`ORS 646.608(1)(sss) ......................................................................................................................11
`
`ORS 646.638(6) .............................................................................................................................26
`
`ORS 646.644(2) .................................................................................................................22, 23, 28
`
`ORS 646.644(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) .................................................................................11
`
`ORS 646.644(2)(a), (c), (f) ............................................................................................................23
`
`ORS 646.644(2)(e) ...................................................................................................................25, 26
`
`Page v
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 7 of 41
`
`ORS 646.644(2)(f) .........................................................................................................................24
`
`ORS 646.644(4) .............................................................................................................................29
`
`ORS 646.644(5) .......................................................................................................................25, 30
`
`ORS 646.644, et seq.........................................................................................................................1
`
`ORS 646A.292 .................................................................................................................................1
`
`ORS 646A.293(2) ....................................................................................................................13, 14
`
`ORS 646A.293(2)(a)-(c) ................................................................................................................23
`
`ORS 646A.293(5) ..........................................................................................................................12
`
`ORS 646A.293(5)(a), (c), (d) .........................................................................................................13
`
`ORS 646A.293(5)(b)......................................................................................................................14
`
`ORS 646A.295 ...............................................................................................................................12
`
`ORS 646A.295(1)(a) ..............................................................................................10, 12, 13, 16, 28
`
`ORS 646A.295(1)(b)..........................................................................................................10, 17, 28
`
`ORS 646A.295(1)(c) ..........................................................................................................10, 19, 29
`
`ORS 646A.295(2) ........................................................................................................19, 20, 21, 29
`
`ORS 646A.710(1)(f) ......................................................................................................................16
`
`ORS 646A.735(1)(f) ......................................................................................................................16
`
`ORS 759.710(2), (3) ......................................................................................................................17
`
`Truth in Lending Act .....................................................................................................................27
`
`Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) .................................................................................. passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`California Code, Business and Professions Code § 17602(a)(1) ...................................................17
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) .............................................................................................32
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................................1, 11, 14
`
`Page vi - DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 8 of 41
`
`Mary Jo Foley, ZD Net, Microsoft is working to fix LinkedIn Premium subscription cancellation
`problems (Oct. 14, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-is-working-to-fix-
`linkedin-premium-subscription-cancellation-problems/ ..........................................................21
`
`Or. Legislature, H. Gen. Gov’t & Consumer Prot. Comm., S.B. 487-A,
`May 17, 2011 (testimony of Keith S. Dubanevich) .................................................................17
`
`
`
`Page vii - DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 9 of 41
`
`LOCAL RULE 7-1 CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to LR 7-1(a), counsel for Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“Defendant” or
`
`“LinkedIn”) conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Julie Easterbrook (“Plaintiff”) in good faith, but
`
`the parties were unable to resolve the issues raised in this Motion.
`
`MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), LinkedIn moves to dismiss
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
`
`granted.
`
`This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Law, LinkedIn’s Notice of
`
`Incorporation by Reference and Alternative Request for Judicial Notice (“Request for Judicial
`
`Notice”), and the Declaration of Suhil Srinivas Vakklaganti in Support of Defendant LinkedIn
`
`Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (“Vakklaganti Dec.”) and attached exhibits, filed herewith.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`When it passed Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”), the legislature intended “to
`
`end the practice of ongoing charging of consumer credit or debit cards or third-party payment
`
`accounts without the consumers’ explicit consent for ongoing shipments of a product or ongoing
`
`deliveries of service.” ORS 646A.292. Similarly, Oregon’s Free Offer Law (“FOL”) requires
`
`disclosures to consumers sufficient to inform them that a free offer is being made and its terms.
`
`ORS 646.644, et seq. At their core, the ARL and FOL require businesses to disclose certain
`
`categories of information to give subscribers basic information when they sign up for an
`
`automatically renewing service or accept a free offer.
`
`Page 1
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 10 of 41
`
`LinkedIn complied with both the letter and spirit of the ARL and the FOL when it offered
`
`automatically renewing memberships to its subscription service, LinkedIn Premium (“LinkedIn
`
`Premium” or “Premium”). Before, during, and related to the Premium subscription process,
`
`LinkedIn clearly and conspicuously disclosed how much consumers would be charged and when,
`
`and that their subscription would be automatically renewed if they did not cancel. LinkedIn told
`
`consumers that they would need to cancel, and when to do so, to avoid further charges; provided
`
`subscribers with its cancellation help page and answers to frequently asked questions (“FAQs”);
`
`gave them instructions and even a cancellation button; and sent email reminders and
`
`acknowledgments. And for those subscribers who accepted LinkedIn’s offer of a free trial
`
`period, they were told when their free trial expired and given the same cancellation options.
`
`LinkedIn disclosed all of this information in a manner designed to make it easy for a subscriber
`
`to understand, just as the statutes intended.
`
`Relying on conclusory allegations and implausible inferences contradicted by those
`
`detailed disclosures, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to impose hyper-technical requirements that are
`
`nowhere to be found in the ARL or FOL. The Complaint fails to allege any facts that would
`
`support a violation of either statute. And because Plaintiff’s two Unlawful Trade Practices Act
`
`(“UTPA”) claims rely on alleged violations of the ARL and FOL respectively, they fail on the
`
`merits. Accepting only well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluating the incorporated
`
`and judicially noticeable disclosures on which Plaintiff relies, the Court should conclude that
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim.
`
`Although those deficiencies alone are sufficient to grant LinkedIn’s Motion to Dismiss,
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint contains two other fatal flaws. First, the UTPA’s one-year statute of
`
`limitations begins to run when a person knew or should have known—on an objective basis—
`
`Page 2
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 11 of 41
`
`that a claim existed. Here, Plaintiff initially subscribed to LinkedIn Premium in January 2019
`
`and admits that she was aware of the recurring charges and, on that basis, attempted to cancel
`
`twice—in January 2021 and again in May 2021. She then waited over a year before filing this
`
`lawsuit. Thus, the face of the Complaint demonstrates that Plaintiff’s claims are untimely.
`
`Second, the UTPA applies only to services “obtained primarily for personal, family, or
`
`household purposes.” ORS 646.605(6)(a). As alleged by Plaintiff, however, individuals and
`
`businesses use LinkedIn’s professional network for commercial purposes. Indeed, the names of
`
`several of LinkedIn’s Premium services (all of which Plaintiff lumps together)—Premium
`
`Business, Sales Navigator Professional, Recruiter Lite—on their face are not consumer services.
`
`Plaintiff does not allege otherwise, nor does she even allege that she purchased Premium Career
`
`for “personal, household, or family” purposes, as she must to state a UTPA claim.
`
`For each of these independently sufficient reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint.
`
`A.
`
`LinkedIn and LinkedIn Premium
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`LinkedIn is a business-centered, global online social network of “business professionals”
`
`“used for professional networking.” (Compl. ¶¶ 1 & n.1, 10.) Its mission is to connect the
`
`world’s professionals and businesses to make them more productive and successful. LinkedIn
`
`offers both free and paid, or Premium, subscriptions. (Id. ¶ 2.) LinkedIn’s Premium
`
`subscriptions allow members to access LinkedIn services for a monthly or yearly fee. (Id. ¶ 47.)
`
`LinkedIn Premium subscriptions include Premium Career, Premium Business, Sales Navigator
`
`Professional, Recruiter Lite, and LinkedIn Learning. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2 & n.4.) Those Premium
`
`Page 3
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 12 of 41
`
`subscription services “target small- and medium-sized professional organizations, individual
`
`members and business groups in larger enterprises.” (Id. ¶ 16 n.11.)
`
`LinkedIn members subscribe to its services using LinkedIn’s website or mobile
`
`application. (Id. ¶ 49.) Purchasers of LinkedIn Premium may sign up on a free-trial basis for a
`
`month. (Id.) At the end of the free-trial month, members may choose to continue the Premium
`
`subscription and, if they do so, are charged a monthly or annual fee. (Id.)
`
`B.
`
`LinkedIn Premium Subscription Process
`
`To subscribe to LinkedIn Premium, customers navigate a standard signup “flow” that
`
`takes them through a series of webpages. (Id. ¶¶ 48-51.) LinkedIn’s signup flow includes a
`
`webpage that appears after the customer selects a type of Premium subscription (the “Offer
`
`Page”). (Id. ¶¶ 48, 50.1) On that webpage, immediately below the “Start my free month” button,
`
`the Offer Page informs the customer that (1) the free offer will last for one month, (2) the price
`
`per month and when it will begin (after the first month), and (3) the ability to “[c]ancel anytime.”
`
`(Vakklaganti Dec., Ex. A.) Using bold text, the Offer Page also provides answers to FAQs such
`
`as: “What happens at the end of my free trial?” and “Can I change or cancel my plan later on?”:
`
`
`1 In describing LinkedIn’s signup flow, Plaintiff provides an exemplar from November 11, 2020.
`(Compl. ¶ 51 n.60.) Plaintiff further alleges that the “Checkout Page shown to consumers has
`remained substantially and materially unchanged between at least 2019 and the present” and that
`the exemplar is representative of disclosures shown to Plaintiff. (Id.) Without admitting the truth
`of those allegations, for purposes of this Motion LinkedIn provides webpages from the year
`before Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed and, according to Plaintiff, that are representative of the
`“substantially and materially unchanged” content shown to subscribers from 2019 to the present.
`Page 4
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`(Id.)
`
`After customers initiate the subscription process, a webpage allows them to select their
`
`billing cycle and payment method (the “Checkout Page”). (Id. ¶¶ 50-51; Vakklaganti Dec.,
`
`Ex. B.) In the “Confirm your billing cycle” portion of the page, the Checkout Page discloses
`
`when the free trial begins and ends, and the monthly fee that will be charged at the end of the
`
`free trial period. LinkedIn also discloses the cancellation policy by telling members (in at least
`
`two locations) “[y]ou can cancel anytime before [a date 30 days from signup] to avoid being
`
`charged,” and by linking to LinkedIn’s cancellation help page. LinkedIn states that it will send
`
`an email reminder seven days before the end of the free trial period. And LinkedIn includes a
`
`hyperlinked question near the payment method—“Why do we need this for a free trial?”—that,
`
`when a customer clicks on or hovers over it, reiterates the disclosures about the cancellation
`
`policy:
`
`Page 5
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`(Vakklaganti Dec., Ex. B.)
`
`After the customer selects a payment method, the Checkout Page includes additional
`
`disclosures in the “Review your order” portion of the page. (Compl. ¶ 51.) In a box set off
`
`above the “Start your free trial” button, those disclosures include bulleted text with some words
`
`in bold, including the sentence: “The plan will automatically renew each month until cancelled.”
`
`Page 6
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 15 of 41
`
`Also included is a blue box and hyperlinks to LinkedIn’s terms of service, cancellation help
`
`page, and refund policy:
`
`(Compl. ¶ 51.)
`
`Below the “Start your free trial” button (in a portion of the webpage that Plaintiff
`
`obscures in Paragraph 51 of her Complaint), LinkedIn provides answers to FAQs, including
`
`when the free trial will begin and end, a description and link telling the customer how to cancel,
`
`and a statement of what happens after the free trial period:
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 16 of 41
`
`
`
`(Vakklaganti Dec., Ex. C; see also id. Ex. B.)
`
`LinkedIn provides all of that information before the customer checks out. By clicking
`
`the blue “Start your free trial” button, the customer completes the signup process. (Compl. ¶ 59
`
`n.65.) LinkedIn then sends an acknowledgment email to customers. (Id. ¶ 65.) The
`
`acknowledgment email expressly states when the free trial ends and provides the automatic
`
`renewal offer terms, including the amount of monthly charge and that the charge will continue
`
`until the customer cancels. (Id.) Immediately after informing members that they will be charged
`
`“until you cancel,” the words “Learn how” appear as a blue hyperlink and link to LinkedIn’s
`
`webpage explaining how to cancel a Premium subscription. (Id.; Vakklaganti Dec. ¶ 9 & Ex. D.)
`
`C.
`
`LinkedIn Premium Cancellation Information
`
`In help pages concerning the cancellation process and FAQs, LinkedIn provides
`
`instructions on how to cancel LinkedIn Premium subscriptions. (Compl. ¶ 56.)2 In the LinkedIn
`
`Help webpage, “Cancel LinkedIn Premium Subscription,” LinkedIn gives step-by-step
`
`instructions on how to cancel the Premium subscription. LinkedIn also includes a direct access
`
`button “Cancel Premium” to facilitate the cancellation process (Vakklaganti Dec., Ex. D):
`
`
`2 Plaintiff both cites and quotes from the LinkedIn Help cancellation pages. (Compl. ¶ 56 n.62.)
`Page 8
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 17 of 41
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims
`
`Plaintiff subscribed to LinkedIn Premium Career “in or around January 2019.” (Compl.
`
`¶ 75.) Plaintiff alleges that the information provided to her before signing up for LinkedIn
`
`Premium failed to satisfy the ARL and FOL, and LinkedIn failed to obtain her affirmative
`
`consent to the automatic renewal and free offer terms. (Id. ¶¶ 76-77.) Plaintiff admits that she
`Page 9
`- DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 18 of 41
`
`received an email acknowledging her subscription, but she does not attach it to the Complaint,
`
`and she claims that the email did not provide her with the necessary information or detail the
`
`offer terms, as required by the ARL. (Id. ¶ 78.)
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that she “remained unaware of the unauthorized charges until
`
`approximately January or February of 2021.” (Id. ¶ 79; see also id. ¶¶ 82-83 (admitting to
`
`“discovery of charges” in early 2021).) After becoming aware of LinkedIn’s charges, Plaintiff
`
`attempted to cancel her subscription in early 2021 and again “in or around May of 2021,” but
`
`was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶ 87.) She ultimately was able to cancel her subscription in March or
`
`early April 2022. (Id.) From February 2019 to March 2022, Plaintiff alleges that LinkedIn
`
`charged her PayPal account $29.99 per month, resulting in over $1,100 in subscription fees. (Id.
`
`¶ 81.)
`
`On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit, alleging that LinkedIn
`
`failed to comply with the ARL in three ways:
`
`(i) Defendant failed 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 was fulfilled, in violation of
`ORS 646A.295(1)(a); (ii) Defendant charged Plaintiff’s and Class
`members’ Payment Methods without first obtaining their
`affirmative consent to the agreement containing the automatic
`renewal offer terms, in violation of ORS 646A.295(1)(b); and (iii)
`Defendant failed to provide an acknowledgment that included the
`automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and
`information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of
`being retained by the consumer, in violation of
`ORS 646A.295(1)(c).
`
`(Id. ¶ 53.)
`
`Page 10 - DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`116883714.21 0074590-00002
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-01108-MC Document 9 Filed 10/07/22 Page 19 of 41
`
`Plaintiff further alleges that LinkedIn “makes it exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily
`
`confusing” for consumers to cancel their LinkedIn Premium subscriptions, in violation of
`
`ORS 646.295(2).” (Id.)
`
`As to the FOL, Plaintiff alleges that LinkedIn’s “missing, incomplete, inconspicuous, or
`
`otherwise inadequate pre-checkout disclosures” violate ORS 646.644(2)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and
`
`(g). (Id. ¶ 54.)
`
`Based on the alleged violations of the ARL and FOL, Plaintiff asserts two claims based
`
`on Oregon’s UTPA. (Id. ¶ 121 (citing ORS 646.608(1)(ttt)); id. ¶ 148 (citing
`
`ORS 646.608(1)(sss)); see also Pearson v. Philip Morris, Inc., 358 Or. 88, 115, 361 P.3d 3
`
`(2015) (explaining UTPA claims and private enforcement).)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`