Perkins et al v. LinkedIn Corporation
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 95 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit A (Redline), # 5 Exhibit B (Redline), # 6 Exhibit C (Redline)) (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2015)
Re: LEGAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF PENDING CLASS ACTION AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
PERKINS V. LINKEDIN CORP.
You are receiving this e-mail because you may have used LinkedIn’s Add
Connections feature between September 17, 2011 and October 31, 2014.
A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
Why did I get this notice? This Notice relates to a proposed settlement (“Settlement”) of a
class action lawsuit (“Action”) against LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) based on LinkedIn’s
alleged improper use of a service called “Add Connections” to grow its member base.
What is the Action about? The Action challenges LinkedIn’s use of a service called Add
Connections to grow its member base. Add Connections allows LinkedIn members to import
contacts from their external email accounts and email connection invitations to one or more of
those contacts inviting them to connect on LinkedIn. If a connection invitation is not accepted
within a certain period of time, up to two “reminder emails” are sent reminding the recipient that
the connection invitation is pending. The Court found that members consented to importing their
contacts and sending the connection invitation, but did not find that members consented to
LinkedIn sending the two reminder emails. The Plaintiffs contend that LinkedIn members did
not consent to the use of their names and likenesses in those reminder emails. LinkedIn denies
these allegations and any and all wrongdoing or liability. No court or other entity has made a
judgment or other determination of any liability.
What relief does the Settlement provide? LinkedIn has revised disclosures, clarifying that up
to two reminders are sent for each connection invitation so members can make fully-informed
decisions before sending a connection invitation. In addition, by the end of 2015, LinkedIn will
implement new functionality allowing members to stop reminders from being sent by canceling
the connection invitation. LinkedIn has also agreed to pay $13 million into a fund that can be
used, in part, to make payments to members of the Settlement Class who file approved claims.
Attorneys representing the Settlement Class will petition the Court for payment of the following
from the fund: (1) reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs up to a maximum of
$3,250,000, and (2) service awards for the Plaintiffs up to a maximum of $1,500 each. The
payment amount for members of the Settlement Class who file approved claims will be
calculated on a pro rata basis, which means that it will depend on the total number of approved
claims. If the number of approved claims results in a payment amount of less than $10, LinkedIn
will pay an additional amount up to $750,000 into the fund. If the pro rata amount is so small
that it cannot be distributed in a way that is economically feasible, payments will be made,
instead, to Cy Pres Recipients selected by the Parties and approved by the Court. No one knows
in advance whether or in what amount payments will be made to claimants.
You may also learn more by clicking on the following links:
Class Action Complaint
Orders on Motions to Dismiss
Cy Pres Recipients
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
If the Court gives final approval to the Settlement, this is the
only way to be eligible to receive a payment.
This is the only option that allows you to retain your rights to
sue LinkedIn about its alleged improper use of Add
Connections to grow its member base.
Write to the Court about why you object to (i.e., don’t like)
the Settlement and think it shouldn’t be approved. You may
mail your written objection to Judge Koh’s Case System
Administrator at the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113. Alternatively, you
may file your written objection in person at any location of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
You must also mail your written objection to Class Counsel
and LinkedIn’s Counsel. The address for Class Counsel is:
Larry C. Russ, Esq., Russ August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire
Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025. The address
for LinkedIn’s Counsel is: Jerome C. Roth, Esq., Munger,
Tolles & Olson LLP, 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
GO TO THE
The Court will hold a “Final Approval Hearing” to consider
the Settlement, the request for attorneys’ fees and expenses of
the lawyers who brought the Action (“Class Counsel”), and
the request for service awards of the plaintiffs who brought
the Action (“Class Representatives”).
You may, but are not required to, speak at the Final Approval
Hearing about your written objection. If you intend to speak
at the Final Approval Hearing, you must include your
intention to do so in your written objection. Follow the
procedure described above for providing your written
objection to the Court as well as to Class Counsel and
You will not receive a payment, even if the Court gives final
approval to the Settlement. You will also be giving up any
claims you may have against LinkedIn based on its alleged
improper use of Add Connections to grow its member base.
You may be eligible to receive the non-monetary benefits of
the Settlement, if the Court gives final approval to the
More information? For more information about the Settlement and how to take the actions
described above, please visit www.[xxx].com or write to the Settlement Administrator at Perkins
v. LinkedIn Corp., Settlement, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC [Address], [City], [State] [ZIP Code],
[email@example.com]. You may also contact Class Counsel by calling (xxx) xxx-xxxx.
Do Not Address Any Questions About The Settlement Or The Litigation To LinkedIn, The
Clerk Of The Court, Or The Judge.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?