The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, “Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose (i) that IAS was experiencing a new material trend of increased competitive pricing pressures and that, as a result, IAS had been forced to cut prices to compensate for weakening demand and slowing revenue growth; (ii) that IAS’s pricing function was no longer ‘favorable’ and IAS could not sustain its pricing and drive price increases; (iii) that pricing had become a key differentiator between IAS and its competitor necessary to close major renewals and new deals; (iv) that the risk that competition ‘could result in increased pricing pressure’ or ‘could put pressure on us to change our prices’ had in fact transpired; and (v) as a result, the IAS’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”  The complaint further alleges that “[a]s a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s shares, Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered significant losses and damages.”