| COMPANY |
Oddity Tech Ltd. |
| COURT |
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| CASE NUMBER |
24-cv-05037 |
| JUDGE |
The Hon. Ramon Ernesto Reyes, Jr. |
| CLASS PERIOD |
July 19, 2023, through May 20, 2024 |
| SECURITY TYPE |
Securities |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS SEPTEMBER 17, 2024.
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:
On May 21, 2024, NINGI Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Oddity “completely misled investors about every critical aspect of its business,” specifically regarding its AI, stating that former employees disclosed that “the [Company’s] AI is nothing but a questionnaire”; that Oddity’s lauded “repeat purchase rates” are attributable to “customers unknowingly enter[ing] into non-cancelable plans” that allow Oddity “to recognize repeat purchases in the following quarters even though the customers don’t want the product.” Additionally, the report claimed that it had “found hundreds of undisclosed lawsuits filed against ODDITY and its subsidiaries in the US and Israel, frequently alleging unpaid bills and violations of consumer protection laws,” including multiple class action lawsuits filed within the past several years.
On this news, Oddity’s stock price fell $3.02, or 7.4%, to close at $37.97 per share on May 21, 2024.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Oddity overstated its AI technology and capabilities, and/or the extent to which this technology drove the company’s sales; (2) Oddity’s repeat purchase rates and revenues were, at least in part, derived from unsustainable and deceptive sales and advertising practices; (3) Oddity downplayed the true scope and severity of ongoing civil litigation against the company and/or its subsidiaries; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially 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.