Why are Delta and American not participating in this lawsuit? They also have hub and spoke models.
|
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 23863761)
Only an idiot judge, or one who is "owned" by corporate interests would allow this suit out of the starting gate if it gets to trial.
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). |
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. |
Originally Posted by garykung
(Post 23864385)
IANAL. This time, UA/Orbitz has a case.
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). 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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by mgcsinc
(Post 23865671)
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. |
Originally Posted by mgcsinc
(Post 23865671)
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. 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. 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,” … 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. … 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. |
Originally Posted by mherdeg
(Post 23865917)
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: Problem solved, no? |
Originally Posted by mherdeg
(Post 23865917)
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.
|
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 23865959)
Easy fix - offer hidden city and other adverse ticketing options by subscription without the booking link, and remove the adverse ticketing options from the front public page with a booking link.
Problem solved, no? |
Originally Posted by uastarflyer
(Post 23863200)
Can UA strike back at those that do it? Take away the miles?
Originally Posted by Mike Jacoubowsky
(Post 23863643)
Just curious, how does the airline know you left the plane? On a continuing flight, are they actually counting seats? That would seem the simplest way of knowing something was amiss (and then going further to see who's missing).
|
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
(Post 23863675)
It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
And how often have you ever been on a flight where they allowed people to stay on the plane at a stopover? If you don't put your BP through the gate reader to board the second segment, the rest of your itinerary goes poof. |
Originally Posted by exerda
(Post 23863181)
Would have to do 2-one way tickets, as UA's aggressive IT systems would cancel the return if you tried hidden city ticketing on the outbound of an itin.
|
Originally Posted by Tchiowa
(Post 23866266)
Originally Posted by uastarflyer
(Post 23863200)
Can UA strike back at those that do it? Take away the miles?
|
Originally Posted by BangkokTraveler
(Post 23868486)
Interesting, do you have a cite where it shows that UA took away miles for hidden-city ticketing and a court upheld it?
Ginsburg v. Northwest, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:57 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.