Outside its headquarters in San Francisco, California, Slack also operates offices in New York City, Denver, Toronto, London, Paris, Tokyo, Dublin, Vancouver, Pune, and Melbourne.

[9] The company goes back to the San Francisco based startup Tiny Speck, which was headed by Stewart Butterfield, the co-founder of the photo sharing site Flickr.

The gameplay was described as follows: "players must learn how to find and grow resources, identify and build community and, at the higher levels of the game, proselytize to those around them".

[1] After the closure of Glitch, the company launched the Slack real-time collaboration app and platform, raising $17 million in funding from Andreessen Horowitz, Accel, and Social Capital.

[22] In October 2014, the company raised $120 million in venture capital with a $1.2 billion valuation led by Kleiner Perkins and GV.

[24][25] In March 2015, Slack signed a deal with investors to raise up to $160 million in a funding round that valued the company at $2.76 billion.

[34] On July 26, 2018, Atlassian announced the shutdown of its competing HipChat and Stride effective February 11, 2019, and the sale of their intellectual property to Slack.

[56] In October 2020, investors plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Slack in the California State Superior Court of San Mateo County, alleging securities violations.

[58] Typically, plaintiffs in Section 11 class actions must show they can trace their shares of stock in the issuer back to the relevant offering.

[60] Slack moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff lacked standing because he could not trace his shares back to the registration statement that he claimed was misleading.

[60] The dissent, citing established precedent, said that Congress provided for strict liability for issuers in Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), but chose to temper that by "limiting the class of plaintiffs who can sue.

"[60] The dissent therefore was of the opinion that Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) confer standing only on plaintiffs who purchased securities issued pursuant to the registration statement containing the allegedly false or misleading disclosure.

"[63] It held that "because we think the better reading of the particular provision before us requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that he purchased shares traceable to the allegedly defective registration statement, we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment holding otherwise.