| COMPANY |
AppLovin Corporation |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| CASE NUMBER |
5:25-cv-02294 |
| JUDGE |
The Hon. Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr. |
| CLASS PERIOD |
May 10, 2023, through February 25, 2025 |
| SECURITY TYPE |
Securities |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS MAY 5, 2025.
If you have suffered losses and would like to discuss your rights, please fill out this form or you may contact Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Case Background:
A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired AppLovin Corporation (“AppLovin”) (NASDAQ: APP) securities between May 10, 2023, and February 25, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”).
The Class Period begins on May 10, 2023. On that day, AppLovin published a shareholder letter announcing the company’s financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2023. The shareholder letter reported AppLovin’s financial results and touted the company’s revenue growth and the alleged factors which lead to those results. Specifically, AppLovin touted that “Our solid financial performance in the first quarter was driven by our market leading solutions which led to record quarterly Software Platform revenue of $355 million, an increase of 16% over the prior quarter,” and that the company’s “8% increase in revenue was primarily driven by partial stabilization in the mobile app ad market and continued improvements in our core advertising technology resulting in higher revenue per install from our advertising solutions.” Also, on May 10, 2023, AppLovin submitted its quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2023, on a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, affirming the previously reported financial results.
On February 26, 2025, Culper Research and Fuzzy Panda published reports (collectively, the “Reports”) alleging that AppLovin’s AI-powered AXON 2.0 digital ad platform is a façade and not the main driver of the company’s recent financial growth. Specifically, the Reports claim that AppLovin used manipulative practices, such as exploiting app permissions in order to carry out installations without users noticing, thereby erroneously inflating installation numbers, and in turn, profit figures. Additionally, the Reports found that AppLovin reverse engineered and exploited advertising data from Meta Platforms to make it appear that their e-commerce segment is performing better than it was. On this news, the price of AppLovin Class A common stock declined $46.06 per share, or approximately 12.22%, from a close of $377.06 per share on February 25, 2025, to close at $331.00 per share on February 26, 2025.
Then, about a month after the end of the Class Period, on March 27, 2025, Muddy Waters Research released a short-seller report on AppLovin, alleging that AppLovin’s management overstates the firm’s return on advertising spending, aggressively retargets to “steal attribution,” and most importantly, violates Google, Meta, and others’ terms of service by creating persistent identity graphs, or PIGs, to train its advertising optimization model. On this news, the price of AppLovin Class A common stock declined $65.92 per share, or 20%, from a close of $327.62 per share on March 26, 2025, to close at $261.70 per share on March 27, 2025.
The complaints allege that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AppLovin’s app segment relied on the systematic exploitation of fraudulent advertising practices including “clickjacking” and “click spoofing”; (2) AppLovin’s advertising and e-commerce program relied on intercepting and appropriating advertising attribution credit; (3) AppLovin employed a backdoor installation scheme to force unwanted apps on customers; (4) AppLovin’s revenue was falsely inflated; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
What is a Lead Plaintiff?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.