According to the Complaint, ContextLogic Inc. is a San Francisco-based, global mobile e-commerce company that operates the Wish platform that connects its value-conscious user base to merchants. Founded in 2010, Wish is a global e-commerce platform that generates revenue by charging merchants a commission on sales made in its marketplace. The Company also generates fees by offering advertising and logistics services to its merchants. With a large range of beauty, clothing and electronics products sold at wholesale prices, Wish claims to have managed to swiftly garner a user base of 100 million monthly active users and 500,000 merchants.

On or about August 28, 2020, ContextLogic filed with the SEC a Form S-1 Registration Statement with the SEC which, after several amendments made pursuant to comments received from the SEC, was declared effective by the SEC on December 15, 2020. On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic priced the IPO at $24 per share and filed with the SEC its final Prospectus, which formed part of the Registration Statement, pursuant to which ContextLogic sold 46 million shares of common stock to the public.

The Complaint alleges that in the Registration Statement and Prospectus used to conduct the IPO and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the strength of ContextLogic’s business operations and financial prospects by overstating its then-present monthly active users (“MAUs”) and MAU growth trends.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on July 26, 2021. A related case continues under Docket 21-CV-03930.

On March 4, 2022, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. All future docketing was ordered to be done in the lead case 21-CV-03930.

On May 16, 2022, the Court issued an Order appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint on July 15. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint on September 16. On March 10, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint.

On April 10, 2023, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second consolidated amended Complaint on June 9. On December 22, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint.

Lead Plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended Complaint on February 16, 2024. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the third consolidated amended Complaint on April 5.

On August 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed without leave to amend. On the same date the Court entered Judgment in favor of the Defendants.

On March 13, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the Court's Judgment.