Texas Attorney General Opens Investigation Into LinkedIn Over 'Ghost Jobs'
Not legal advice. This article discusses legal and regulatory developments and is generated with AI assistance under human editorial review. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. You should consult your own qualified legal counsel before taking or refraining from any action based on the content of this article. Read our AI Transparency statement.
The News
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a civil investigation on July 14 into whether LinkedIn misled job-seekers who pay for LinkedIn Premium Career by advertising ghost jobs — listings that don't correspond to actual openings or where the employer has no immediate intention of hiring. Paxton's office issued a civil investigative demand seeking documents, data, and internal communications about LinkedIn's marketing, job-verification practices, Premium subscriptions, and representations about its job listings. Writing in ERE, David Manaster notes that the term 'ghost job' is being used by job-seekers to describe everything from evergreen postings for recurring hiring to frozen requisitions never removed — legitimate postings that are confusing but not fraudulent. He separately documents that fake employee profiles on LinkedIn company pages remain pervasive, with one eight-person company finding 263 fake accounts associated with its page before LinkedIn's executive escalations team intervened.
Why It Matters
For TA leaders, this investigation matters less for its legal prospects — Manaster questions whether it will go far — and more for what it reveals about collapsing trust in the hiring process. Candidates already sceptical of job boards are now encountering fake employee profiles, AI-generated content, and listings that may or may not be real. If your organisation posts evergreen reqs or pipeline roles, you should assume candidates are viewing them through a lens of suspicion. The reputational risk isn't that Texas will regulate your postings; it's that talented candidates will stop applying to yours because they can't distinguish them from the noise.
Taking Action
All action is situated in your corporate context. These are starting points, not prescriptions — choose what fits.
Connect
Who to talk with in your enterprise
Your employer brand lead: Review how your evergreen and pipeline job postings are labelled. Consider adding language that makes the hiring intent transparent — 'ongoing recruitment for [role]' rather than presenting a pipeline ad as an immediate opening.
Your recruitment marketing team: Check your company's LinkedIn page for fake employee profiles. Small companies are particularly vulnerable — ERE itself, a three-person organisation, has 603 people associated with its page, most of them fake. Report and escalate if needed.
Inspect
What to take a closer look at
Audit your active job postings across all platforms. For each requisition, verify that it corresponds to a real, budget-approved opening with a named hiring manager. Flag any posting that has been live for more than 90 days without a hire or formal pipeline designation. Also review your LinkedIn company page's employee list — if you're a 200-person company with 500 associated profiles, you have a verification problem.
Reflect
What to think about more deeply
If candidates can't tell the difference between your real job postings and fake ones, is the problem the platform — or is it that your posting practices have become indistinguishable from the fraud they're complaining about?