LinkedIn Agrees To Pay $6.625M To End Ad View Inflation Feud: Report TopDevz, Noirefy, LinkedIn, Judge van Keulen, U.S. District Court, Microsoft Corporation, Judge Susan van Keulen, Northern District of California by https://www.benzinga.com/
AI Insights:
Simple Explanation:
LinkedIn, a website where people can find jobs and connect with other professionals, is in trouble because they might have lied about how many people watched their video advertisements. Some people who paid LinkedIn to show their video advertisements are not happy because they think LinkedIn counted video views even when no one was really watching. They have filed a lawsuit, which is like a big argument in court, to try to get LinkedIn to fix this problem and pay them money. LinkedIn says they did not do anything wrong, but they are willing to pay $6.625 million to end this argument and also promise to have someone check their advertisement numbers for two years. Read from source...
Critical Perspective:
1. The headline and the lede are misleading:
- The headline suggests that LinkedIn agreed to pay $6.625 million to end the ad view inflation feud, which is not entirely accurate. The lawsuit is still pending approval by the judge, and the settlement is not final.
- The lede states that LinkedIn "inflated video ad view counts to overcharge advertisers," which is also not accurate. The lawsuit claims that LinkedIn counted video ad views from users' LinkedIn apps, even if the videos played off-screen, but it does not necessarily mean that LinkedIn overcharged advertisers.
2. The article contains several inconsistencies:
- The article mentions that LinkedIn fixed software bugs that caused over 418,000 potential overcharges, mostly under $25, but then says that the lawsuit was filed shortly after LinkedIn revealed the bugs. This contradicts the timeline of events.
- The article states that Judge van Keulen dismissed the lawsuit in December 2021, but then says that the advertisers appealed and paused the appeal to allow for mediation. This also contradicts the timeline of events.
3. The article lacks balance and presents only the advertisers' perspective:
- The article does not mention any defense or counterarguments from LinkedIn or any other source that supports LinkedIn's position.
- The article focuses on the advertisers' lawyers' potential legal fees, but does not provide any information on how the settlement would affect LinkedIn's users, employees, or shareholders.
4. The article uses emotional language and irrational arguments:
- The article uses words like "inflated," "overcharged," and "lawsuit" repeatedly, which create a negative tone and imply guilt without providing any evidence.
- The article ends with a photo of LinkedIn's logo with the caption "Photo by IB Photography on Shutterstock," which is irrelevant and adds no value to the article.
### Final answer: AI's review is accurate and warranted. The article could be improved by addressing the issues raised by AI and providing more context, balance, and objectivity.
Investment Analysis:
We are not financial advisors. It's always essential for you to consult with a financial advisor and do your research before making any decisions about investments.
There are no comprehensive investment recommendations and risks in this text. It is a news article that reports on LinkedIn's settlement of a class action lawsuit. The article mentions that LinkedIn agreed to pay $6.625 million to resolve the lawsuit, and that the company denied any wrongdoing but agreed to hire an external auditor to review its ad metrics for two years. The article also provides some background information on the lawsuit and its possible consequences.