A PYMNTS Company

LinkedIn Antitrust Settlement Faces Setback in California Court

By  |  December 18, 2025

A federal judge in California has declined to give preliminary approval to a proposed class action settlement between LinkedIn and millions of its paying users, dealing a setback to an agreement intended to resolve claims that the company monopolized the professional social networking market.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    According to Reuters, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of Oakland ruled on Wednesday that the proposed deal suffered from significant shortcomings and failed to meet the legal standard required for approval. In his order, Gilliam said the settlement was not “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” pointing to what he described as “serious problems” with the agreement.

    The lawsuit, filed in 2022, accuses LinkedIn of using restrictive terms in certain business contracts to block third-party companies from competing with its platform. Per Reuters, the plaintiffs alleged that these practices allowed LinkedIn to charge inflated prices for premium subscriptions and enhanced account features.

    Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which was disclosed in a court filing in July, LinkedIn agreed that for a three-year period it would not enforce provisions in current or future contracts related to application programming interfaces, or APIs, that could limit potential competitors. The deal did not include any monetary compensation for users.

    Read more: LinkedIn to Alter Contract Terms in Antitrust Case Settlement, No Payout Included

    Gilliam took issue with the lack of financial relief, writing, “Plaintiffs seek approval of a settlement providing only injunctive relief with unclear value for a limited period of three years.” He also noted that the plaintiffs “do not attempt to quantify the monetary relief they could have achieved at trial.”

    According to Reuters, the settlement class would cover roughly 9 million LinkedIn members who purchased premium services between Jan. 13, 2018, and the present. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the proposed changes to LinkedIn’s contracting practices would promote competition, lead to lower prices, and expand choices for consumers.

    However, Gilliam said the court was not persuaded that the three-year restriction would be sufficient to allow current or future rivals to effectively challenge LinkedIn’s dominance. He wrote that neither side provided “evidence or explanation” showing that the limited duration would meaningfully foster competition, per Reuters.

    The judge also questioned the plaintiffs’ intention to seek up to $4 million in legal fees, suggesting that the amount appeared disproportionate given the relief offered in the settlement. LinkedIn and attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.

    The case is Todd Crowder et al v. LinkedIn Corp, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 4:22-cv-00237-HSG.

    Source: Reuters