In Re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation

Background

Plaintiffs moved for final approval of a class settlement with LinkedIn Corporation and separately moved for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards. The court considered the settlement agreement, an addendum, prior approval orders, the filed papers, and the proceedings at the January 28, 2025 hearing.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. advertisers who purchased “LinkedIn Advertising,” defined as advertising offered or purchased through LinkedIn Marketing Solutions, during the class period of January 1, 2015, through May 31, 2023. The order states that the class numbered nearly 300,000 advertisers.

The exclusions included LinkedIn; entities in which LinkedIn had a controlling interest; LinkedIn’s officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; advertisers who timely requested exclusion; and the assigned judge, the judge’s spouse, certain relatives, and those relatives’ spouses.

The court found, for settlement purposes, that the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied. It found that joinder of all class members would be impracticable; common legal and factual questions predominated; the plaintiffs’ claims were typical because they paid to advertise on LinkedIn during the relevant period; the plaintiffs and class counsel adequately represented the class; and a class action was superior because individual litigation would cost more than the individual recovery sought.

Notice and Settlement Approval

The court found that notice had been provided in compliance with its earlier order and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances. It concluded that the notice adequately informed class members about the case, settlement terms, and rights to object, exclude themselves, or appear at the final approval hearing. The court also found that the notice satisfied due process, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and 28 U.S.C. § 1715. No class member objected.

The court found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2), was in the class’s best interests, and should receive final approval. It found that the settlement resulted from adequate representation, was negotiated at arm’s length with assistance from a Ninth Circuit mediator and Randall W. Wulff, provided fair and adequate relief while accounting for litigation risks and delay, and treated class members equitably.

Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

The court found class counsel’s requested attorneys’ fee reasonable. Because the claims arose under California law, the court applied California law to the fee entitlement and calculation. The fee equaled 25% of the settlement fund, which the court found appropriate in light of the litigation’s potential value, the results obtained, litigation risks, the contingent nature of the representation, and the novelty and difficulty of the issues.

As an additional check, the court found that class counsel reasonably spent more than 3,339 hours on the litigation and that the lodestar—the hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—was $2,625,704.50. The requested fee reflected a negative multiplier of 0.63. The court granted $1,656,750 in attorneys’ fees, payable from the settlement fund.

The court also granted reimbursement of $154,874.94 in litigation costs from the settlement fund. It awarded each plaintiff a $25,000 service award, also payable from the settlement fund, based on the time, effort, and risk undertaken for the class.

Judgment and Continuing Authority

The order incorporated the settlement agreement’s release. As of the settlement’s effective date, the release became binding on all class members who had not properly excluded themselves. The court directed the clerk to enter the final order and judgment, which would be treated as a final judgment upon entry.

The court retained continuing authority over settlement implementation; any further proceedings concerning attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs connected with the action and settlement; and the parties and class members for interpreting, enforcing, and administering the settlement agreement and related orders and judgments.