4 ms·

They're suing them for sometimes being more expensive than booking directly with the airline. How in the world is that a valid lawsuit? Could I start a business

They're suing them for sometimes being more expensive than booking directly with the airline. How in the world is that a valid lawsuit? Could I start a business and start suing people when they make a better product and charge more?

gruez 3y ago
>They're suing them for sometimes being more expensive than booking directly with the airline. How in the world is that a valid lawsuit? Read the actual lawsuit document[1]. They claim that: 1. they violated various ToS clauses of the AA website, which they agreed to by accessing the website to download logos. 2. they're helping other people violate AA's terms of carriage contract by finding them skiplagged tickets, which is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference 3. they infringe on AA's copyright and trademark by using their logo on their site I won't speak to the validity of each accusation, as that's up to the judge to decide, but superficially they all seem plausible. [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.380325/gov.uscourts.txnd.380325.8.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...
- DannyBee 3y ago
  Lawyer here: AA will definitely lose on 3, it won't be close. These are all really weak claims, but: For one, they will have a lot of trouble showing acceptance of a ToS. It's a loser anyway and they'll likely end up with an antitrust or unfair trade practice counterclaim if they push it too far. For two, this is a loser even if they can prove most of it (they can't). They would also have to prove the interference happened through an improper method (like blackmail) because the contract can be terminated at will. Even proving intentional interference will not be enough. This is already basically the hardest tort to prove and I give a near zero chance of success. It's hard to see this as anything other than a nuisance lawsuit
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    It's cost-effective for airlines to be a nuisance like this. It's a rattle of the sabre, and they simply wish to prove that they're serious and tough on this "abuse", and they want it to have a chilling effect, especially on individuals who may have the audacity to try it independently.
  - brianwawok 3y ago
    Except billion dollar company VS little man often wins
    - DannyBee 3y ago
      This is much more true in the movies than real life. I think you may be seriously underestimating how many lawsuits most companies face, and then lose (or settle). For companies worth 1+billion, they average 300+ simultaneous lawsuits per year. Plaintiffs win about 66% of those when they deal with contracts. The losing ones (for plaintiffs) are cases like this one :)
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    It appears they never specify any damages. They reference "all actual damages" at the end (IX. f.) but they never detail what they are or even how they might be calculated. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't proving monetary damages an essential component of a civil complaint like this?
  - batguano 3y ago
    Here’s hoping for some Streisand Effect publicity that puts Skiplagged on the map! I for one hadn’t heard about them until this lawsuit
    - hattmall 3y ago
      Surprisingly I first learned about it from their previous lawsuit, several years ago, which I guess skip lagged won because they are still around.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  > Read the actual lawsuit document[1]. I'm not smart enough to understand whatever legalese is in that document.

gruez 3y ago

>They're suing them for sometimes being more expensive than booking directly with the airline. How in the world is that a valid lawsuit? Read the actual lawsuit document[1]. They claim that: 1. they violated various ToS clauses of the AA website, which they agreed to by accessing the website to download logos. 2. they're helping other people violate AA's terms of carriage contract by finding them skiplagged tickets, which is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference 3. they infringe on AA's copyright and trademark by using their logo on their site I won't speak to the validity of each accusation, as that's up to the judge to decide, but superficially they all seem plausible. [1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.380325/gov.uscourts.txnd.380325.8.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.38...

DannyBee 3y ago
Lawyer here: AA will definitely lose on 3, it won't be close. These are all really weak claims, but: For one, they will have a lot of trouble showing acceptance of a ToS. It's a loser anyway and they'll likely end up with an antitrust or unfair trade practice counterclaim if they push it too far. For two, this is a loser even if they can prove most of it (they can't). They would also have to prove the interference happened through an improper method (like blackmail) because the contract can be terminated at will. Even proving intentional interference will not be enough. This is already basically the hardest tort to prove and I give a near zero chance of success. It's hard to see this as anything other than a nuisance lawsuit
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  It's cost-effective for airlines to be a nuisance like this. It's a rattle of the sabre, and they simply wish to prove that they're serious and tough on this "abuse", and they want it to have a chilling effect, especially on individuals who may have the audacity to try it independently.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  Except billion dollar company VS little man often wins
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    This is much more true in the movies than real life. I think you may be seriously underestimating how many lawsuits most companies face, and then lose (or settle). For companies worth 1+billion, they average 300+ simultaneous lawsuits per year. Plaintiffs win about 66% of those when they deal with contracts. The losing ones (for plaintiffs) are cases like this one :)
- listenallyall 3y ago
  It appears they never specify any damages. They reference "all actual damages" at the end (IX. f.) but they never detail what they are or even how they might be calculated. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't proving monetary damages an essential component of a civil complaint like this?
- batguano 3y ago
  Here’s hoping for some Streisand Effect publicity that puts Skiplagged on the map! I for one hadn’t heard about them until this lawsuit
  - hattmall 3y ago
    Surprisingly I first learned about it from their previous lawsuit, several years ago, which I guess skip lagged won because they are still around.
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
> Read the actual lawsuit document[1]. I'm not smart enough to understand whatever legalese is in that document.