LinkedIn Corporation has moved to dismiss a suit brought by a member who argued that the platform made it unduly difficult for her to end her “Premium” subscription after taking advantage of a free trial period. In its defense, LinkedIn said that the problems complained of do not rise to an Oregon Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), Free Offer Law (FOL), or unfair trade practices law violation, and instead “seek[] to impose hyper-technical requirements.”
The plaintiff filed the putative class action in late July, alleging that LinkedIn failed to comply with the ARL in several ways, like failing to present automatic renewal offer terms clearly and conspicuously and charging the plaintiff’s payment method without first obtaining her affirmative consent, among other alleged stumbles. The FOL claim contended that LinkedIn failed to make disclosures sufficient to inform consumers of the free offer and its terms.
The motion to dismiss says that 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.”
The filing contains numerous screenshots of LinkedIn web pages, purportedly depicting overt disclosures concerning how much consumers would be charged and when, that their subscription would be automatically renewed if they did not cancel, and cancellation instructions. In turn, LinkedIn argues that the complainant relied on “conclusory allegations and implausible inferences contradicted by those detailed disclosures.”
Because the complaint fails to allege viable claims under either the ARL or FOL, the plaintiff’s appended Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) claims fail on the merits, the motion says. LinkedIn adds that the UTPA claims are time-barred and that the services LinkedIn offers are not “consumer services” within the meaning of the law.
The case is before Judge Michael J. McShane.
The plaintiff is represented by Markowitz Herbold PC and Bursor & Fisher P.A. and LinkedIn by Stoel Rives LLP.
