Chapman v. Priceline Group, Inc.
3:15-cv-01519
D. Conn.Sep 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Austin Chapman (on behalf of a proposed nationwide class) alleges Priceline’s prominent “Best Price Guaranteed” marketing promised the lowest fares but that Priceline secretly marked up Spirit Airlines tickets, which were cheaper on Spirit.com.
- Chapman purchased Spirit tickets in 2014–2015 (via Kayak/priceline terms apply) and claims he would not have bought from Priceline had he known of the markup.
- Claims asserted: CUTPA violation (Count 1), breach of contract (Count 2), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 3), breach of express warranty (Count 4), and unjust enrichment (Count 5).
- Priceline moved to dismiss all claims (Rule 12(b)(6)), arguing among other things that state-law claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), that plaintiffs failed to state claims, and that CUTPA class allegations should be stricken because the named plaintiff is not a Connecticut resident.
- Court denied the motion to dismiss (finding the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded and not ADA-preempted) but granted Priceline’s motion to strike the nationwide CUTPA class allegations for failure to satisfy CUTPA’s in-state representative requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA preemption | Chapman: Priceline is not the type of entity/claims do not sufficiently affect airline price-setting | Priceline: State-law claims (CUTPA, good faith, unjust enrichment) implicate air carrier prices and are preempted by the ADA | Denied preemption — no plausible showing that enforcing state law against Priceline would significantly affect airlines’ prices or conduct |
| Sufficiency of CUTPA claim | Chapman: Website language creates an overall impression that Priceline is not adding secret surcharges; allegations support deception under CUTPA | Priceline: Statements are governed by DCP regulations and the complaint alleges fraud that must meet Rule 9(b) | CUTPA claim survives — plausible deceptive-practice theory; Rule 9(b) inapplicable because fraud is not essential to the theory pleaded |
| Breach of contract/warranty | Chapman: Terms can be reasonably read to promise no intentional hidden markups; ambiguous contract language raises triable issue | Priceline: Terms/disclaimers show the Best Price Guarantee is a price-match policy, not an absolute lowest-price promise | Claims not dismissed — reasonable consumer interpretation plausibly supports breach theories; contract ambiguity is a factual question |
| CUTPA class representative requirement | Chapman: Rule 23 controls class certification in federal court (Shady Grove) | Priceline: CUTPA limits class representatives to in-state residents or those injured in Connecticut; this requirement is substantive and not displaced by Rule 23 | Strike nationwide CUTPA class allegations — District precedents applying the "intertwined" test hold Rule 23 does not displace CUTPA’s in-state representative requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (preemption principles under the Supremacy Clause)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption: "related to" requires significant impact on airline prices, routes, or services)
- Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, 128 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997) (party asserting preemption bears heavy burden)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Rombach v. Chang, 355 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) (Rule 9(b) application to claims with fraud-like allegations)
- Hoskins v. Titan Value Equities Group, 252 Conn. 789 (2000) (scope of covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Connecticut law)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 v. state procedural bars; plurality and concurring tests for Rules Enabling Act limits)