Airline battles frequent flyer mileage brokers in federal court

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Carey (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2008).  The terms and conditions Alaska Airlines’ frequent flyer program, known as the Mileage Plan, prohibit its members from selling, purchasing or bartering miles or award tickets, and they state that miles and award tickets “are void if transferred for cash or other consideration.”

In 2007, Alaska Airlines filed a lawsuit against Bradley and Celeste Carey and their company, Carey Travel, Inc., seeking damages arising from, and injunctive relief against, the defendants’ brokering of plan miles and award tickets.  According to the airline, the defendants have operated a scheme in which they buy miles from plan members (which renders the miles void), redeem the miles for award tickets and then sell those tickets to their customers, who use them to travel on the airline’s flights.  In essence, according to the airline, the defendants have tortiously induced plan members to violate the plan and have fraudulently caused the airline to issue tickets and provide transportation based on void miles and award tickets.

In response, the defendants made a novel argument.  They moved to dismiss most of the counts of the complaint on the grounds that the contract between the airline and plan members, which consists of the plan’s terms and conditions, is “both illusory AND unconscionable.”  The defendants argued that contract is illusory because it is “unilaterally modifiable” by the airline, and that it is unconscionable because it is one-sided (particularly because it gives the airline the right to terminate the plan) and because plan members have no opportunity to bargain over the terms and conditions.  The defendants contended that because the contract does not exist or is unenforceable, the airline’s causes of action that are premised on the existence of such contract, such as its cause of action for tortious interference with contract, fail to state a claim for relief.

The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that defendants had raised this issue too early in the case and indicating that the defendants could proceed with discovery and then file a motion for summary judgment on this issue.  Undaunted, the defendants moved that the court reconsider its order, boldly suggesting that perhaps the court had not “looked at, reviewed, or carefully studied” the plan’s terms and conditions.

The court denied the motion for reconsideration.  Exercising considerable restraint, the court indicated that it had in fact carefully reviewed the terms and conditions and, as proof, pointed out that it had cited certain terms and conditions in its prior order.  The court then noted that contract provisions allowing a party to terminate a contract do not render the contract illusory where the termination can only be exercised upon the occurrence of specified conditions.  The court held that because the contract requires that the airline give 180 days advance notice before terminating the plan, the termination provision did not render the contract illusory.  The court also noted that if the airline decided to eliminate the advance notice provision and terminate the plan immediately, a plan member might have a good argument that the contract, as interpreted by the airline, was illusory, but “that is not this case.”

Note:  In March, after the court issued its order denying the motion to dismiss, the defendants filed a 41-page class action counterclaim and third party complaint alleging, among other things, that Alaska Airlines, “its favored frequent flyer mile broker, Points.com” and Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines (as “unnamed co-conspirators”), have violated federal antitrust statutes by conspiring to eliminate all frequent flyer mileage brokers and monopolize the mileage market and that an in-house attorney and a senior manager of Alaska Airlines are also liable for these antitrust violations.  The defendants filed a similar counterclaim in a case that United Airlines had brought against them in 2005 for brokering Mileage Plus miles and awards.

Court decisions highlight need to clarify important Agent Reporting Agreement provision

Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., American Airlines, Inc. et al. (9th Cir. (Cal.) Jan. 22, 2008).  Despite consisting of over 70 pages, ARC’s Agent Reporting Agreement contains very few provisions that give airlines specific rights against ARC-accredited travel agents.  Most of the airline-protective provisions are in ARA Section VII, which is entitled “Agent’s Authority, General Rights and Obligations.”  For airlines, subsection H of Section VII is a critically important provision; it states in part as follows:  “The Agent shall comply with all instructions of the carrier, and shall make no representation not previously authorized by the carrier.”  Unfortunately for the airlines, Section VII.H has been held to be “ambiguous” by the Ninth Circuit in the Westways case, as well as by a California federal district court in 2006 in a separate case.

In 1999, Westways World Travel and another ARC-accredited travel agent sued American Airlines (and ARC and other entities) in a California federal district court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in an unlawful scheme to charge the agents, through debit memos, for ticketing violations for hidden city, back-to-back and point-beyond tickets.  The agents claimed that, through this scheme, the defendants had violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and breached the ARA.

In 2003, the court certified the case as a class action, but the court later granted the defendants’ motion for decertification.

In 2004, ARC was dismissed from the case pursuant to a settlement in which ARC, while denying any liability, agreed (i) not to participate in the enforcement of contested airline debit memos seeking payment from agents for hidden city, back-to-back or point-beyond tickets, (ii) to issue a statement to agents informing them of ARC’s agreement not to participate in such enforcement, and (iii) not to terminate the accreditation of any agent that refuses to pay a contested debit memo seeking payment for hidden city, back-to-back or point-beyond tickets.

In 2004, American and the other remaining defendants moved for summary judgment.  American contended that because it had the right under the ARA to issue debit memos to recover its losses arising from agents’ violation of the airline’s instructions prohibiting hidden city, back-to-back and point-beyond ticketing, its conduct in issuing such debit memos could not be considered extortion or any other predicate act needed to show a RICO violation or a breach of the ARA.

In a detailed written opinion issued in 2005, the district court ruled for the defendants.  First, it held the ARA gave American the right to issue debit memos to recover damages for agents’ failure to comply with the airline’s “instructions” within the meaning of ARA Section VII.H.  Second, it held that American, through its conditions of carriage and tariff, had given “instructions” within the meaning of Section VII.H prohibiting agents from issuing hidden city, back-to-back and point-beyond tickets, even though the conditions of carriage and tariff had been issued for passengers, not agents.  The court interpreted the Section VII.H phrase that “the Agent shall comply with all instructions of the carrier” to mean that agents were required to follow all carrier instructions, even if such instructions had been specifically issued to other parties, not to agents.  Finally, the court held that because American had the right under the ARA to issue the debit memos in question, its conduct in doing so could not constitute a RICO predicate act or a breach of the ARA.

The agents appealed, and the Ninth Circuit issued a split decision in January 2008.  The appeals court agreed that the agents’ RICO claims were deficient, reasoning that American could not be liable under that statute by simply demanding payment for amounts that the airline believed it was owed under its interpretation of the ARA.

But the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the trial court’s ruling on the agents’ breach of contract claim.  The appeals court held that the Section VII.H phrase “the Agent shall comply with all instructions of the carrier” could, in its opinion, be understood two ways:  to require that agents need only comply with “instructions” issued specifically to them, and not also with instructions issued to passengers and other parties, or, in the alternative, to require that agents comply with all instructions issued to agents, passengers and all other parties.  In addition, the court refused to overturn the trial court’s decertification of the case as a class action.  The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The other case in which the court held Section VII.H of ARA to be ambiguous was Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Mundo Travel Corporation.  In that case, Continental had sued an ARC-accredited agent in a California federal district court, alleging that the agent had violated the ARA by issuing point-beyond tickets in violation of the “instructions” prohibiting such ticketing in the airline’s own “Booking and Ticketing Policy.”

The agent in Mundo moved to dismiss on the grounds that the airline’s claims were barred by Section I.C of the ARA, which provides that the ARA “does not, for example, address fares charged by the carrier; that is a matter between a carrier and the Agent.”  Continental responded that Section VII.H had required that the agent comply with the “instructions” against point-beyond ticketing set forth in the Booking and Ticketing Policy.  In a 2006 decision, the court denied the agent’s motion, noting that “the ARA is ambiguous” because the two ARA provisions conflicted, leaving it unclear whether the agent had been required to comply with the Booking and Ticketing Policy.  Mundo was settled a few months after the court’s decision, so there was never a definitive ruling on the enforceability of Section VII.H in that case.

Perhaps it is time for an airline to submit a proposal to ARC’s president, for referral to ARC’s board of directors or stockholders, seeking to clarify Section VII.H so airlines would stand a better chance of enforcing this important provision in court cases.  Maintaining the text of a provision that may be read multiple ways, and may conflict with other ARA provisions, only serves to keep airlines and agents in a position where their respective rights and obligations are unclear.  Unless the provision is clarified, it will be up to the courts to figure out what the provision means and its role with respect to other ARA provisions.  Aren’t the parties to a contract supposed to be the ones to do that?

ARC seeks court confirmation of arbitration award against agency

Airlines Reporting Corporation v. Versailles, LLC (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2007).  ARC has filed a petition seeking the confirmation of an arbitration award in its favor against Versailles, LLC, a travel agency that does business as Business Travel International and is located in Irvine, California.

According to ARC’s petition, the agency had filed an appeal with the Travel Agent Arbiter after an ARC audit revealed that the agency had violated the Agent Reporting Agreement.  The Arbiter dismissed the appeal, noting in his ruling that “there is clearly the appearance of fraud constituting a clear and present danger of substantial loss to ARC and/or the carriers.”  The Arbiter also ordered that the agency surrender all airline identification plates and traffic documents to ARC and pay $206,400 to ARC, but the agency has failed to comply with such order, according to ARC.  ARC alleges that $192,475 of the amount owed by the agency is from chargebacks by credit card holders claiming that their cards were charged fraudulently.

Update:  On January 25, 2008, the court entered an order confirming the Travel Agent Arbiter’s order.

Magistrate judge recommends that ARC obtain default judgment against agency and owner

Airlines Reporting Corporation v. PVO Travel Corp. and Pete Victor Obuljen (E.D. Va. Sept. 27, 2007).  As previously reported, ARC filed a lawsuit against PVO and Obuljen, the agency’s sole owner, for unreported sales and dishonored drafts.  The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, so ARC moved for a default judgment.

The magistrate judge issued a report recommending entry of a default judgment for $296,947, the amount of damages ARC had demanded plus attorneys’ fees, against the defendants.  However, before issuing his recommendation, the magistrate judge engaged in a lengthy analysis as to whether the Virginia court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants, a California corporation and an individual residing in California.

The magistrate judge concluded that the court did have jurisdiction over the defendants under Virginia’s long-arm statute because they transacted business in Virginia by negotiating and entering into the Agent Reporting Agreement in Virginia, and because the ARA called for the defendants to perform certain obligations in Virginia.  The same court had engaged in a similar personal jurisdiction analysis, and had reached the same result, in Airlines Reporting Corporation v. Cisne Corp., Claudio Menicocci and Olga Menicocci (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2000).

Note:  On October 22, 2007, the court adopted the magistrate’s report and entered a default judgment against the defendants.

Southwest persuades court to shut down boarding pass company’s operations

Southwest Airlines Co. v. BoardFirst, L.L.C. (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2007).  BoardFirst went into business in 2005 to assist Southwest passengers in obtaining the coveted “A” group boarding passes.  “A” boarding passes are obtained by the first 45 passengers to check in, and “A” passengers are the first to board the aircraft.  A BoardFirst customer authorizes the company to act as the customer’s agent.  When the customer’s boarding pass becomes available, a BoardFirst employee uses the customer’s personal information to log onto southwest.com and attempt to obtain an “A” boarding pass for the customer.  BoardFirst notifies its customer if it was successful; if so, BoardFirst collects a $5 fee from the customer, who prints the boarding pass via southwest.com or at an airport kiosk.

Southwest sent BoardFirst cease and desist letters, but BoardFirst continued to operate.  So Southwest sued BoardFirst, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and for violation of a Texas statute prohibiting harmful access to a computer.  Southwest sought damages as well as a permanent injunction against BoardFirst’s operations.  Southwest moved for partial summary judgment on its causes of action and on BoardFirst’s counterclaims for tortious interference with contractual relations.

The court granted Southwest’s motion as to its breach of contract cause of action, holding that BoardFirst had breached the parties’ “browsewrap” agreement.  A browsewrap agreement is entered into between a web site owner and a user of the site when the user accesses the site after having received actual or constructive knowledge that such access constitutes acceptance of the site’s terms and conditions.

Southwest.com’s home page displayed a notice stating that use of the site constitutes acceptance of Southwest’s terms and conditions, one of which was that site use was only permitted for “personal, non-commercial purposes.”  The court held that BoardFirst had actual knowledge of the prohibition against commercial use of the site since at least the time it received Southwest’s first cease and desist letter.  BoardFirst argued that it did not breach the contract because its use of the site was authorized by its customers.  The court rejected this argument, holding that BoardFirst’s authorization to act for its customers “does not make its conduct any less of a violation of the Terms.”

The court then considered whether Southwest had suffered damages due to BoardFirst’s conduct.  Southwest argued that it had incurred damages because BoardFirst’s activities had decreased traffic on its site, thereby depriving Southwest of selling and advertising opportunities, and because BoardFirst’s activities had interfered with Southwest’s effort to build an “egalitarian” image by creating a “de facto first class” for its flights.

The court held that Southwest was entitled to damages but that its damages were impossible to quantify, thus making the remedy of a permanent injunction “particularly suitable.”  The court permanently enjoined BoardFirst “from using southwest.com in a way that breaches the Terms posted on the site.”  The court denied Southwest’s motion as to its federal and state computer-related causes of action and as to BoardFirst’s tortious interference counterclaims.

Note:  This opinion is significant because many web site owners, such as Ticketmaster in its lawsuit against Tickets.com, have failed to persuade courts to enforce their sites’ terms and conditions.  The opinion provides an effective road map for airlines that wish to make sure that users of their sites comply with the sites’ rules.

ARC files lawsuit seeking damages for unreported sales

Airlines Reporting Corporation v. PVO Travel Corp. and Pete Victor Obuljen (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2007).  ARC has filed a lawsuit against PVO Travel Corp., which does business as Globetrotter Travel, and Obuljen seeking damages of $286,605 for unreported sales and dishonored drafts.  ARC alleges in its complaint that the defendants, a terminated agent and its president and sole owner, are liable under causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and fraud.  According to the complaint, the defendants are located in San Pedro, California.

Fifth Circuit upholds restitution sentence in certificate fraud case

U.S. v. Klouse (5th Cir. (Tex.) Dec. 15, 2006).  An American Airlines employee fraudulently used the company’s Travel Authorization Certificates to have tickets for 88 flights issued for friends and family members.  The employee pleaded guilty to use of unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1029(a)(2).

On appeal, the employee challenged the portion of her sentence requiring restitution in the amount of $166,603, which was the market value of the fraudulent airline tickets (using the lowest applicable fare).  She argued that the figure should be based on American’s internal (apparently lower) valuation of the certificates for tax and insurance purposes.  The court held that certain comments in the Sentencing Guidelines supported the market value loss calculation.

This opinion is important because it gives airlines ammunition against discount and upgrade certificate brokers and others who practice certificate fraud against airlines.  Not only does it confirm that certificate fraud constitutes unauthorized access device use, but it also confirms that airlines can obtain restitution in criminal cases, and damages in civil cases, based on the market value of the fraudulent tickets.

Airline fights back against certificate brokering

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Bauer (D. N.D. Dec. 15, 2006).  Since the early days of the Internet, various web site owners have brazenly offered to buy and sell airline discount and upgrade certificates, a direct violation of the terms governing such certificates.  To add insult to injury, these sites have often used airline logos and other valuable trademarks to promote their illicit services by confusing consumers into believing that there was some association between the airlines and the site.  Northwest decided to take action against one such site owner and has been successful in its initial efforts.

Northwest became aware that the owner of “northwestdiscountcoupons.com” was offering the airline’s e-Certificates for sale.  The airline distributes e-Certificates to passengers who have experienced flight delays and other problems; they allow the holder to obtain substantial discounts on ticket purchases.  By their terms, e-Certificates may be transferred but not sold.

In its lawsuit, Northwest requested injunctive relief and monetary damages as remedies for the site owner’s infringement of the airline’s marks and fraudulent sale of e-Certificates.  The airline immediately moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting further e-Certificate buying and selling, as well as further use of the northwestdiscountcoupons.com site or any other term that is confusingly similar to any Northwest trademark.  The court granted the TRO.

A recent visit to northwestdiscountcoupons.com revealed that the site has been reduced to one page that meekly states as follows:  “This website has been removed.”

U.S. airline obtains personal jurisdiction over European online travel agent

TravelJungle v. American Airlines, Inc. (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2006).  TravelJungle is an online travel agent that uses software to automatically harvest information from airline web sites.  TravelJungle’s principal places of business are in Europe and it has no U.S. employees.

American sued TravelJungle in a Texas state court for violating AA.com’s use agreement, which prohibits use of site information for “commercial purposes.”  In response, TravelJungle challenged the court’s personal jurisdiction over the company.

The appeals court held that the courts of Texas had jurisdiction over TravelJungle under the state’s long-arm statute.  The court reasoned that TravelJungle’s software had been purposefully directed to access the airline’s site and its servers, which are in Texas, and that the company should have been aware that it could be subject to suit wherever the site’s servers happen to be located.