Dec 31, 2014, 12:15 am
Last edit by: J.Edward
Related New Articles for United/Orbitz vs. Skiplagged.com
(Mod Note: While some FTers have chosen to contribute to skiplagged's legal defense we request a direct link to do so not be placed in the wiki.)
(Mod Note: While some FTers have chosen to contribute to skiplagged's legal defense we request a direct link to do so not be placed in the wiki.)
UA sues "hidden city" search site Skiplagged.com
Nov 19, 2014, 12:48 am
#16
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: SFO
Programs: OZ Diamond/*G, IHG Diamond Amb, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,239
Why are Delta and American not participating in this lawsuit? They also have hub and spoke models.
Nov 19, 2014, 4:30 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
There was an agreement for such and such. And Skiplagged.com has done something otherwise.
Unless the judge says "hidden city" is totally legal (and any prohibition will be against public policies).
Nov 19, 2014, 5:18 am
#18
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Midwest
Programs: Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 261
Hidden city ticketing is not illegal or even unethical (the New York Times Ethicist column said so), it’s merely against airline rules. But SkipLagged is up against big corporations willing to fight on forever with a team of $800-an-hour lawyers, so they will probably surrender because the cost to fight back is just too high. Right or wrong doesn’t matter. Big bullies with deep pockets win routinely this way.
SkipLagged isn't selling hidden city tickets, it is providing information to the general public. The assertions that the site is “engaging in hidden city ticketing” and "unfairly competing" are both pretty ludicrous.
It’s unfortunate, but when a small business or individual is faced with an army of lawyers retained by a large corporation, defending against even groundless lawsuits is very expensive. They don’t stand much of a chance since they can easily be outspent very quickly.
SkipLagged isn't selling hidden city tickets, it is providing information to the general public. The assertions that the site is “engaging in hidden city ticketing” and "unfairly competing" are both pretty ludicrous.
It’s unfortunate, but when a small business or individual is faced with an army of lawyers retained by a large corporation, defending against even groundless lawsuits is very expensive. They don’t stand much of a chance since they can easily be outspent very quickly.
Last edited by Chevelter; Nov 19, 2014 at 5:38 am Reason: clarity
Nov 19, 2014, 8:39 am
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,171
If not, a small company should have little fear of $800/hr lawyers when that company exists wholly online - just close shop, move all resources offshore, then re-open in a jurisdiction that has little interest in $800/hr American lawyers...that's what offshore businesses are for.
Nov 19, 2014, 9:06 am
#20
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
Basically all the legal discussion in this thread is completely incoherent. It isn't hard to take a moment to understand the cause of action here so as to have at least a marginally informed discussion, but most haven't bothered.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Nov 19, 2014, 9:33 am
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,171
Basically all the legal discussion in this thread is completely incoherent. It isn't hard to take a moment to understand the cause of action here so as to have at least a marginally informed discussion, but most haven't bothered.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Nov 19, 2014, 9:41 am
#22
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,892
Basically all the legal discussion in this thread is completely incoherent. It isn't hard to take a moment to understand the cause of action here so as to have at least a marginally informed discussion, but most haven't bothered.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Particularly disgusting is the idea that if a finder of fact (probably a jury) adjudged this company liable for this specific business tort, that would prove that the judge was incompetent or unethical.
I'm disappointed.
Here's the complaint, http://web.mit.edu/mherdeg/Public/14...-complaint.pdf . I've also made it accessible via RECAP.
There are also 115 pages of exhibits attached to the complaint, which I'm not gonna bother to grab (I bet one is the UA CoC).
No other interesting filings in the case yet. Here's the docket as of 19 Nov, http://ia802604.us.archive.org/2/ite...07.docket.html .
I'm baffled that skiplagged thought they could get away with this -- when you did a search for LAX to CLE, for example, they might have shown you a LAX-CLE-BWI flight with a "book on united.com" direct link. Giving you direct booking links to the airline's Web site to encourage people to break the contract of carriage was pretty gutsy.
I hope the "hey I built a custom user script to let you ticket any ITA fare solution" guy who put his source code on github sees this text from the complaint about behavior that makes Orbitz unhappy:
35. Second, Zaman’s program identifies the unique Orbitz URL needed to generate
the Skiplagged user’s desired search result. In furtherance of his scheme to generate precise
search results, Zaman likely wrongfully obtained information about Orbitz’s application
programming interface (“API”) at some point before September 2014. Orbitz’s API information
is necessary to “call in” to Orbitz’s website with the unique Orbitz URL.
the Skiplagged user’s desired search result. In furtherance of his scheme to generate precise
search results, Zaman likely wrongfully obtained information about Orbitz’s application
programming interface (“API”) at some point before September 2014. Orbitz’s API information
is necessary to “call in” to Orbitz’s website with the unique Orbitz URL.
Did he think this would work?:
48. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Zaman has personally profited from his
practice of promoting “hidden city” ticketing by soliciting and receiving payments from
commercial airlines and online travel agencies. In fact, in response to one of United’s cease-and-desist
letters, Zaman solicited United to become one of Skiplagged’s “partners,” …
practice of promoting “hidden city” ticketing by soliciting and receiving payments from
commercial airlines and online travel agencies. In fact, in response to one of United’s cease-and-desist
letters, Zaman solicited United to become one of Skiplagged’s “partners,” …
50. On September 15, 2014, Orbitz Worldwide sent a cease-and-desist letter to
Zaman, explaining that it has received several complaints from major airlines that believe Orbitz
Worldwide is facilitating “hidden city” ticketing. Orbitz Worldwide demanded that Zaman
immediately cease and desist all redirection from Skiplagged to the Orbitz.com website, or to
any of Orbitz’s affiliate sites.
51. On the same day, Zaman responded to Orbitz Worldwide by email and promised
to “stop redirecting users to Orbitz and partners by end of business week.”
52. Zaman, however, did not stop redirecting Skiplagged users to Orbitz, but instead
has blocked Orbitz IP addresses from accessing the Skiplagged website. Starting on or around
October 2, 2014, when Orbitz personnel attempted to perform a search on Skiplagged, they
received an error message that read “Sorry for the inconvenience, but Skiplagged is unable to
process your booking request.” Zaman, in other words, was trying to hide his improper conduct
from Orbitz, so that he could go on redirecting Skiplagged users to Orbitz’s site, without Orbitz’s
permission or knowledge. Orbitz believed and relied upon Zaman’s promises and believed for a
time that Zaman was complying with his promises based on several tests from Orbitz computers
that seemed to show that Zaman had complied with his promises. As such, Orbitz initially
refrained from bringing this lawsuit. …
Zaman, explaining that it has received several complaints from major airlines that believe Orbitz
Worldwide is facilitating “hidden city” ticketing. Orbitz Worldwide demanded that Zaman
immediately cease and desist all redirection from Skiplagged to the Orbitz.com website, or to
any of Orbitz’s affiliate sites.
51. On the same day, Zaman responded to Orbitz Worldwide by email and promised
to “stop redirecting users to Orbitz and partners by end of business week.”
52. Zaman, however, did not stop redirecting Skiplagged users to Orbitz, but instead
has blocked Orbitz IP addresses from accessing the Skiplagged website. Starting on or around
October 2, 2014, when Orbitz personnel attempted to perform a search on Skiplagged, they
received an error message that read “Sorry for the inconvenience, but Skiplagged is unable to
process your booking request.” Zaman, in other words, was trying to hide his improper conduct
from Orbitz, so that he could go on redirecting Skiplagged users to Orbitz’s site, without Orbitz’s
permission or knowledge. Orbitz believed and relied upon Zaman’s promises and believed for a
time that Zaman was complying with his promises based on several tests from Orbitz computers
that seemed to show that Zaman had complied with his promises. As such, Orbitz initially
refrained from bringing this lawsuit. …
54. Zaman responded on September 5, 2014, with an extensive email outlining his
disagreements with the cease-and-desist letter. Nevertheless, Zaman ended the letter with an
offer to remove all references to “United Airlines” and United’s logo on Skiplagged.
55. Zaman and United’s counsel and business representatives spoke via telephone on
September 9, 2014, during which Zaman agreed to remove all United references and all United
flights and fare information from Skiplagged’s search results.
56. Afterward, and contrary to his promises, Zaman merely “censored” the references
to United on Skiplagged and added a notification for Skiplagged users that read “Sorry for the
inconvenience, but United Airlines says we can’t show you this information.
disagreements with the cease-and-desist letter. Nevertheless, Zaman ended the letter with an
offer to remove all references to “United Airlines” and United’s logo on Skiplagged.
55. Zaman and United’s counsel and business representatives spoke via telephone on
September 9, 2014, during which Zaman agreed to remove all United references and all United
flights and fare information from Skiplagged’s search results.
56. Afterward, and contrary to his promises, Zaman merely “censored” the references
to United on Skiplagged and added a notification for Skiplagged users that read “Sorry for the
inconvenience, but United Airlines says we can’t show you this information.
Last edited by mherdeg; Nov 19, 2014 at 9:58 am
Nov 19, 2014, 9:46 am
#23
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,171
I'm just surprised that no one has dug up the complaint yet. Bloomberg even gives us the docket number; no excuse. Case is 14-cv-9214, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
Here's the complaint, http://web.mit.edu/mherdeg/Public/14...-complaint.pdf . I've also made it accessible via RECAP.
There are also 115 pages of exhibits attached to the complaint.
No other interesting filings in the case yet. Here's the docket as of 19 Nov, http://ia802604.us.archive.org/2/ite...07.docket.html .
I'm baffled that skiplagged thought they could get away with this -- when you did a search for LAX to CLE, for example, they might have shown you a LAX-CLE-BWI flight with a "book on united.com" direct link. Giving you direct booking links to the airline's Web site to encourage people to break the contract of carriage was pretty gutsy.
I hope the "hey I built a custom user script to let you ticket any ITA fare solution" guy who put his source code on github sees this text from the complaint about behavior that makes Orbitz unhappy:
Here's the complaint, http://web.mit.edu/mherdeg/Public/14...-complaint.pdf . I've also made it accessible via RECAP.
There are also 115 pages of exhibits attached to the complaint.
No other interesting filings in the case yet. Here's the docket as of 19 Nov, http://ia802604.us.archive.org/2/ite...07.docket.html .
I'm baffled that skiplagged thought they could get away with this -- when you did a search for LAX to CLE, for example, they might have shown you a LAX-CLE-BWI flight with a "book on united.com" direct link. Giving you direct booking links to the airline's Web site to encourage people to break the contract of carriage was pretty gutsy.
I hope the "hey I built a custom user script to let you ticket any ITA fare solution" guy who put his source code on github sees this text from the complaint about behavior that makes Orbitz unhappy:
Problem solved, no?
Nov 19, 2014, 9:48 am
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 2,002
I'm baffled that skiplagged thought they could get away with this -- when you did a search for LAX to CLE, for example, they might have shown you a LAX-CLE-BWI flight with a "book on united.com" direct link. Giving you direct booking links to the airline's Web site to encourage people to break the contract of carriage was pretty gutsy.
Nov 19, 2014, 9:58 am
#25
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: LHR (sometimes CLE, SFO, BOS, LAX, SEA)
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 5,892
Ya, that would have been a safer business model than "become an Orbitz affiliate, then ask Orbitz to ticket itineraries which violate the airline's contract of carriage and run the risk of debit memos, then expect Orbitz to pay you commissions for the privilege". Really any business model that didn't make partners unhappy would have been a good idea …
Nov 19, 2014, 10:34 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Yes. And they have done it. And the courts have upheld it.
You didn't board the next flight.
You didn't board the next flight.
Nov 19, 2014, 11:00 am
#27
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
And sometimes when you take an Amtrak or Van service (like from ABE) segment and legitimately board it and take it, the rest of your itinerary goes poof anyway.
Nov 19, 2014, 5:16 pm
#29
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Florida
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 1,917
Interesting, do you have a cite where it shows that UA took away miles for hidden-city ticketing and a court upheld it?
Nov 19, 2014, 5:56 pm
#30
Join Date: Aug 2011
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 8,634
Ginsburg v. Northwest, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014)