No Lift-Off for Lawsuit Alleging Trick Pricing on American Airlines' Website
This putative class action lawsuit accused American Airlines Inc. of using website cookies and algorithms to systematically trick customers into accepting contracts at lower prices before hiking them up at the last minute, but the court found the claims didn't hold up to scrutiny.
January 13, 2020 at 04:46 PM
4 minute read
A putative class action lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida that could have affected airlines across the nation has nosedived, succumbing to a summary judgment from U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman over a lack of evidence.
The ruling clarified confusion over whether filling in an online form was akin to entering into a contract with a company.
Named plaintiff Margaret Schultz from Palm Beach County accused Texas-based American Airlines Inc. of using website cookies and algorithms to systematically trick customers into accepting contracts at lower prices, before hiking them up at the last minute. But the court found those allegations didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Schultz's breach of contract lawsuit claimed that at 7 p.m. on May 25, 2017, she found a flight from Washington, D.C., to Miami for $197, but after she clicked "pay now" an error message said the transaction couldn't be processed. Schultz alleged the price shot up to $297 and ultimately became $379, which she paid. The suit claimed that happened because the airline's computer engineers manipulated price data.
"American has ascertained, through millions of observations of millions of flight bookings on its website and other forms of data mining, that once consumers decide on an airline, departure airport, arrival airport, flight time and price level for a specific seat, they will likely pay a higher price for the same seat to avoid stress associated with changing their flight," the complaint said.
But Altman found that testimony from the plaintiff "blatantly contradicted" electronic records from American Airlines that said it had sold its last $197 fare at 3:39 p.m.
Schultz claimed this was the third time this had happened in five months, but didn't have screenshots of related transactions or error messages. Instead, she offered "substantively identical" pages from a dummy transaction that allegedly showed a similar price hike.
Schultz claimed she spent 55 minutes deciding on a ticket, according to Altman's ruling, which said it wasn't enough that she repeatedly insisted under oath that she'd seen the $197 fare at 7 p.m.
The plaintiff didn't dispute the accuracy of those records, and instead claimed the website must have malfunctioned. But that argument didn't fly.
"Schultz, in short, asks this court to accept as true her wholly-uncorroborated, self-serving testimony—even though the thrust of that testimony is, given the objective documentary record, implausible," Altman wrote. "This the court cannot—and will not—do."
Even if there had been a glitch, Altman found that clicking "pay now" was not akin to entering into a binding contract with American Airlines, as it represented the fifth stage of a six-part process — the final part being the "finish" page. After that, American Airlines argued it then has to check whether customers have sufficient funds, take their payment and confirm regulatory authorities had cleared them to fly—none of which happened in Schultz's case.
When a browser clicks on a flight advertised on American Airlines' website, the system is designed to hold that fare for a 15-minute period, while the potential customer decides whether to accept it.
But Altman stressed this doesn't mean American Airlines offered Schultz a specific fare that she could claim at any point, because an airplane "cannot accommodate every person who might want a seat on a particular flight."
Rather than amounting to a contract, the ruling said the defendant's 15-minute hold was a way of policing abuse while adhering to the laws of supply and demand.
"Without it, a consumer who was not sure whether she would need a particular flight could, months before that flight, fill out AA's online order form to near-completion and then leave the web browser open for weeks (or even months) at a time—until she was ready to pull the proverbial trigger and click 'Pay Now,' " the ruling said. " This cannot be the law."
Plaintiffs attorneys Mason Kerns and Jeremy Block of Mason Kerns Law in Miami and Robert Burkett Jr. of Burkett Law Office in Fort Myers said they plan to appeal.
American Airlines has denied any wrongdoing, but declined to comment. Humberto Ocariz of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Miami and Elizabeth Marks, James Brandt and Michael Bern of Latham & Watkins' New York and Washington, D.C., offices handled its case.
|Read the ruling:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250