Professional networking platform LinkedIn has asked a United States federal judge to prevent several of its current and former senior executives, including Chief Executive Officer Daniel Shapero, from being questioned under oath in a long-running antitrust class action. The request marks the latest development in litigation that accuses the company of unlawfully monopolising the market for professional social networking services.

The lawsuit, Todd Crowder et al. v. LinkedIn Corp., is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was brought by LinkedIn users who allege that the company used anti-competitive practices to dominate the professional networking industry, leaving users and competitors with limited alternatives.

Why LinkedIn Wants to Block the Depositions

A deposition is a pre-trial procedure in which witnesses provide sworn testimony that may later be used during trial. Plaintiffs often seek to depose senior corporate executives when they believe those officials possess information that is directly relevant to the disputed issues.

LinkedIn has argued that five current and former executives should not be subjected to depositions because they lack unique, first-hand knowledge that cannot be obtained from other company employees or documentary evidence. The company maintains that forcing its highest-ranking officials to testify would impose an unnecessary burden while offering little additional value to the discovery process.

Courts in the United States frequently apply what is commonly known as the "apex doctrine," which is designed to protect senior executives from unnecessary depositions where lower-level employees can provide the same information. Although the doctrine is not applied uniformly across all jurisdictions, judges often weigh whether the executive has unique personal knowledge before allowing such testimony.

A Settlement That Never Materialised

Earlier, LinkedIn sought to resolve the proposed class action through a negotiated settlement. However, the presiding judge declined to grant preliminary approval, identifying what the court described as "serious problems" with the proposed agreement. As a result, the litigation continued, returning the parties to the discovery stage where plaintiffs are seeking further evidence from the company.

The failed settlement significantly altered the course of the litigation. Instead of moving toward final approval and compensation for class members, both sides resumed preparing for what could become an extended legal battle.

The Plaintiffs' Perspective

The plaintiffs contend that testimony from LinkedIn's senior leadership could shed light on important strategic decisions relating to the company's market conduct. They are likely to argue that top executives were directly involved in, or had knowledge of, policies that allegedly enabled LinkedIn to maintain an unlawful monopoly in professional networking.

Such testimony, if permitted, could provide insight into executive decision-making, internal competition strategies, and the company's approach to market dominance.

LinkedIn, however, disputes the necessity of these depositions and insists that relevant information can be obtained through less intrusive means.

What Happens Next?

Though much public attention has focused on antitrust actions involving larger technology firms such as Google, Apple and Meta, the LinkedIn case demonstrates that specialised digital platforms are also being challenged over their market power.

The judge will determine whether LinkedIn's current and former executives must appear for depositions. Regardless of that decision, the underlying antitrust claims remain unresolved, and the parties continue to prepare the case for further proceedings.

Source: Reuters