Texas investigates LinkedIn over alleged 'ghost jobs' targeting job seekers ⁠53%

7/15/2026, 4:35:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.2% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 755 faulty-reasoning hits from 443 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠53% (10,313 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.90% of the article peer group.

Texas has launched an investigation into LinkedIn over allegations the company allegedly advertised and profited from fake or misleading job listings known as "ghost jobs," the attorney general's office announced Tuesday. 
The investigation centers on claims that job seekers who paid for LinkedIn Premium subscriptions may have been presented with listings that were not legitimate hiring opportunities, according to the attorney general's office. 
The attorney general's office describes a "ghost job" as a listing that either does not correspond to an actual open position or is posted despite an employer having no immediate intention of filling the role, according to the attorney general's office. 
According to the attorney general's office, LinkedIn does not disclose that some listings may not represent active hiring opportunities, leading some consumers to pay for Premium subscriptions based on allegedly misleading representations about the platform's job marketplace. 
META EMPLOYEES SUE ON ALLEGATIONS COMPANY USED AI TO TARGET WORKERS ON MEDICAL, PARENTAL LEAVE FOR LAYOFFS 
Texas officials said LinkedIn Premium Career and Premium Business subscriptions cost about $39.99 and $69.99 per month, respectively. 
"I will use every resource available to my office to help job-seeking Texans find and secure real employment opportunities," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. 
"LinkedIn has a duty to provide the services it advertises and ensure that consumers paying for Premium subscriptions are receiving access to legitimate job postings," he continued. 
"I am investigating whether LinkedIn has misled Texans by promoting and profiting from ‘ghost jobs’ while marketing itself as a trusted platform for finding employment." 
Paxton said his office has issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking documents, data and internal communications related to LinkedIn's advertising, marketing, verification practices and representations about its Premium subscription services and job listings. 
IBM SENDS 'SHOCKWAVE' THROUGH TECH INDUSTRY WITH AI WARNING 
In response to the investigation , LinkedIn defended its job marketplace, saying listings on the platform are required to be authentic and accurately represented. 
"LinkedIn’s goal is to help jobseekers find their next role, and our policies require that jobs posted be authentic and accurately represented," a LinkedIn spokesperson told FOX Business. 
"For many jobs posted on LinkedIn, we also display the company's response time and whether they're currently reviewing candidates, which helps jobseekers know if it is a current, active job opportunity." 
"We actively enforce our policies and continually invest in new features like verifications for jobs, recruiters and company pages to help LinkedIn members identify more trusted opportunities," the spokesperson added. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
The attorney general's investigation has not resulted in formal charges or a lawsuit. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 4.1%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 13.1%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.2%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias13.3%This article: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 22.1%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias22.1%This article: 6.8%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem7.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.2%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority24.2%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.9%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring5.9%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.6%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 8.4%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.2%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof7.2%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.0%

443 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers87%attributed speech58writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageattorney general's office • 31 words • 100.0% coverageattorney general's office • 32 words • 0.0% coverageattorney general's office • 41 words • 0.0% coverageattorney general's office • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTexas officials • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKen Paxton • 28 words • 0.0% coverageKen Paxton • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKen Paxton • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKen Paxton • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLinkedIn • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLinkedIn • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLinkedIn • 31 words • 0.0% coverageLinkedIn • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

LinkedIn

100%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words29% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%LinkedIn: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.