Passengers Sue United Claiming Kickbacks Doubled the Cost of Travel Insurance
Consumers claim that they would not have paid the artificially inflated travel insurance prices had they known that the airline negotiated a brokerage fee with the sellers.
September 23, 2019 at 05:31 PM
3 minute read
Travelers have jumped on board a class action complaint aimed at United Airlines over claims that the company pockets an illegal kickback from third-party insurers featured on its website.
The consumers claim they would not have paid the artificially inflated travel insurance prices of Allianz or the Travel Guard Group had they known that the airline negotiated an illicit brokerage fee with the sellers, according to the complaint filed Sept. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
"At no point does United disclose to consumers that it receives a commission or kickback every time a customer elects to purchase travel insurance, or that the consumers are funding this kickback," wrote plaintiffs lawyers from Glancy Prongay & Murray in Los Angeles and Levi & Korsinsky in San Francisco. "At no point during the class period did United disclose to plaintiffs, or any of the class members, the true nature of its relationship with Allianz or the Travel Guard Group or any other entity that is associated with the travel insurance offered on United's website." Plaintiffs Diana Vallarta of San Jose, California, and Lisa Salmons of Stamford, Connecticut, brought the class action claims over travel insurance they purchased within the last three years. The lawsuit follows a 2018 report from Sen. Edward Markey that claims travel insurance kickbacks have become an illegitimate, consumer-funded "profit center" for the airline industry.
Arguing that United misled them into fronting the cost of an illegal kickback, the customers are suing for unjust enrichment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The complaint asserts that United has repeatedly prompted future passengers to purchase insurance with statements such as don't "ignore the unexpected" and "The top 4 reasons you need travel insurance." Customers must accept or deny a policy before purchasing tickets online, write Rosemary Rivas and Kevin Landau of Levi & Korsinsky and Marc Godino of Glancy Prongay. The plaintiffs lawyers did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication.
During checkout, the complaint alleges that United represents the third-party insurers as the "sole-recipients" of the travel insurance fees, without noting the payments United gets from the transaction. According to the complaint, the partnership between United and the insurers means customers pay more than they should.
"Indeed, travel insurance is available on the open market that is less expensive than the insurance offered on United's website, and often provides superior coverage, in part because the open-market insurance doesn't include any illegal kickbacks to United," the plaintiffs attorneys write. "For example, United's Travel Guard insurance is nearly twice as expensive as comparable—if not superior—plans that are otherwise available to consumers."
United did not respond to a request for comment.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
7 minute readAviation Attorney and Pilot Analyzes Jeju Air Crash, Potential Litigation Issues
In-House Moves of the Month: Boeing Loses Another Lawyer, HubSpot Legal Chief Out After 2 Years
5 minute readSpaceX Sues California Coastal Commission, Alleging Political Bias Against CEO Elon Musk
Trending Stories
- 1Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
- 2The New Rules of AI: Part 1—Managing Risk
- 3Change Is Coming to the EEOC—But Not Overnight
- 4Med Mal Defense Win Stands as State Appeals Court Rejects Arguments Over Blocked Cross-Examination
- 5Rejecting 'Blind Adherence to Outdated Precedent,’ US Judge Goes His Own Way on Attorney Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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