In addition to this, it should be added that in most cases, the adaptation of the content on the web to the specific user is not carried out proactively, but rather through the algorithms that are automatically activated on the network, and even in this matter there is an impact on the weight that must be given to the subjective component that concerns the efforts to penetrate the relevant market.
- The application of the tests set out in the case law to our case leads to an unequivocal result.
As for whether LinkedIn should be seen as a corporation that has operations in Israel, there are quite a few indications that LinkedIn has significant activity in the Israeli market. According to the Applicants' claim, which was not concealed, LinkedIn has millions of Israeli users (the Respondent claimed that the figure to which the Applicants referred relates to all users on the network and not only to the members of the group, but did not provide any other data) and that it has (and already had offices and employees at the time of the request for approval) in Israel (Appendix 2 to the Request for Approval and Appendix 7 to the Applicants' Response to the Heresy Request); The network allows the uploading and sharing of content in the Hebrew language (Appendix 5 to the Applicants' response to the heresy request; contrary to the Respondent's claim in its summaries, the Applicant's interrogation did not reveal that these were publications made after the submission of the Request for Approval - see pp. 9-10 of the minutes) and payment in Israeli currency (Appendix 6 to the Applicants' response to the heresy request). Moreover, the applicants' response to the request for heresy were accompanied by documents attesting to the fact that already in 2019, the state hired the network's services for the purpose of recruiting civil servants (Appendix 2 to the response), and that LinkedIn allows targeted searches in Israel (Appendix 3). It should be noted that some of these data are based on evidence that at this stage was not submitted as admissible evidence, however, taking into account that the Respondent (who of course has all the relevant information) chose not to submit an affidavit on her behalf and did not contradict this evidence in any other way, I found that there is no impediment to relying on it at this stage of the proceedings (compare: Tel. (Center) 54964-07-23 Ravid Dekel v. Amazon.com [Nevo] (October 8, 2025), in paragraph 14, on the references therein).