Dai v. SAS Institute Inc., 4:24-cv-02537

Plaintiffs allege that several hotel operators (the "Hotel Defendants") and IDeaS, Inc. conspired to fix hotel room prices using a revenue management software ("RMS") provided by IDeaS.
The Complaint claims that Hotel Defendants gave IDeaS access to non-public pricing and occupancy data, facilitating supra-competitive pricing recommendations that were adopted across the industry.
Plaintiffs assert that IDeaS' algorithm leverages and pools competitively sensitive information from multiple hotel chains to enforce coordinated pricing.
The alleged conspiracy is framed as a hub-and-spoke arrangement, with IDeaS as the "hub" and the hotel chains as the "spokes."
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a horizontal agreement among competitors as required for a Section 1 Sherman Act claim.
The court granted the motion to dismiss, but gave Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Plaintiffs plausibly allege a horizontal price-fixing agreement?	Hotel Defendants' use of IDeaS' RMS and sharing of confidential data show a coordinated scheme amounting to agreement.	Plaintiffs only allege parallel conduct and conclusory statements, not facts plausibly suggesting a horizontal agreement.	No plausible horizontal agreement alleged; motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend.
Was there sufficient parallel conduct pleaded?	Market data and widespread RMS usage show parallel pricing and industry changes occurred.	The complaint lacks details of timing and adoption rates among Defendants to support parallel conduct.	Parallel conduct allegations are insufficiently pled to infer agreement.
Are “plus factors” present to suggest collusion?	Market conditions, knowledge of competitors using IDeaS, attendance at events, and exchange of confidential data are plus factors.	No non-conclusory facts show exchange of confidential data or actual collusion; trade meetings and market factors are not enough.	Plus factors alleged do not nudge claims from possible to plausible agreement.
Should Plaintiffs be allowed to amend?	Plaintiffs request opportunity to supplement allegations.	Not opposed if amendment could cure defects.	Leave to amend granted; not futile at this stage.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (sets the plausibility standard for pleading a Sherman Act § 1 claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulates the plausibility requirement for federal pleadings)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939) (acceptance of an invitation to join a restrictive scheme can infer agreement)
United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942) (an agreement can be found even if not all parties are aware of the larger scheme at outset)
In re Musical Instruments & Equipment Antitrust Litigation, 798 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) (hub-and-spoke conspiracy and requirement of plus factors for § 1 claims)
Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (elements required for a Sherman Act Section 1 claim)