LinkedIn asks judge to bar top executives' testimony in lawsuit it tried to settle

The antitrust lawsuit, first filed in 2022, said LinkedIn illegally held more than 97% of the professional social networking market and charged inflated prices for premium subscriptions. Lawyers for the users say they need to question senior executives who are “personally responsible for the development, defense, and monetization of LinkedIn’s professional social networking monopoly.”

LinkedIn agreed last year to settle the lawsuit, but U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr in Oakland rejected the proposal. LinkedIn would have altered some business practices but not made any payout to users. The company has denied any wrongdoing. “The claims made in this case are baseless, and no amount of additional discovery will change that. We remain confident in our position and will continue to contest this case,” LinkedIn said in a statement on Monday.

The plaintiffs on Friday asked for permission to file an amended complaint incorporating newly disclosed information from LinkedIn, a new federal antitrust claim and allegations under California’s unfair competition law.

Gilliam scheduled a hearing for April 2027 on whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs’ lawyers have estimated there are hundreds of thousands of potential class members.

LinkedIn has asked a U.S. judge to block a group of users from questioning five current and former top executives, including CEO Daniel Shapero, in a proposed class action alleging the company monopolized professional social networking.

LinkedIn’s lawyers at Dechert said in a filing in federal court in California on Friday that the plaintiffs should be barred from questioning Shapero and other leaders, including former CEOs Ryan Roslansky, Jeff Weiner and Reid Hoffman. The company said the executives have no unique first-hand information to share that’s relevant to the case and that the plaintiffs can seek information elsewhere.