Lawsuit Overview
April 16, 2021 - An amended complaint was filed.
November 23, 2020 - An investor in shares of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Pinterest, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019.
San Francisco, CA based Pinterest, Inc. provides visual discovery engine in the United States and internationally. Pinterest, Inc. readily admits that its financial and operational well-being critically depends on its ability to grow its base of monthly active users. Pinterest measures the monetization of its platform through Average Revenue per User (“ARPU”).
On October 31, 2019, Pinterest, Inc. announced its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. Pinterest, Inc. reported disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S. MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest, Inc. also missed its consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S. advertising revenue. Pinterest, Inc. only marginally increased its full year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future quarters. Shares of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) declined from $36.83 per share in August 2019 to as low as $19.04 per share in December 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) common shares between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, Pinterest made false and misleading statements to the public and failed to disclose that the Company’s addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity, that which significantly decelerated Pinterest’s future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user, that Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue, and that as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.