Del Rio v. CrowdStrike, Inc.
1:24-cv-00881
| W.D. Tex. | Jun 18, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs were airline passengers who experienced flight delays or cancellations across the US due to a CrowdStrike software update that caused outages among airlines’ and airports’ Windows systems.
- Plaintiffs incurred various expenses (replacement flights, hotels, lost wages, etc.) as a result of these disruptions and sued CrowdStrike, asserting state-law negligence and public nuisance claims.
- Plaintiffs sought relief not just for themselves, but for a putative nationwide class of similarly situated airline passengers.
- Defendants (CrowdStrike, Inc. and CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc.) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
- The airplane service disruption was caused by a faulty cybersecurity software update issued by CrowdStrike and implemented by airlines that relied on the Falcon platform.
- The key legal question was whether state-law claims against a non-airline vendor (CrowdStrike) for damages flowing from airline services are preempted by the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA Preemption over State-law Claims | Claims shouldn’t be preempted, as CrowdStrike is not an airline nor solely providing airline services. | The ADA broadly preempts claims relating to airline services, even if brought against non-airline vendors. | ADA preempts; claims relate to airline services. |
| Connection of Claims to “Airline Services” | CrowdStrike’s services are generic cybersecurity, not unique to airlines. | CrowdStrike’s service here affected core airline operations (ticketing, baggage, etc.). | Claims are directly linked to airline services. |
| Significant Effect on Airline Operations | Imposing liability on CrowdStrike does not regulate airlines. | Tort liability would have significant, regulatory-like effect on airline operations and pricing. | Claims would significantly affect services; preempted. |
| Exception for Personal Injury or Remote Claims | Claims are like personal injury claims (which aren’t preempted). | Claims don’t arise from operation or maintenance of aircraft, but from services, so not excepted. | No exception applies; claims preempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (broad interpretation of ADA preemption for claims "relating to" airline services)
- Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334 (defining "airline services" broadly for ADA preemption)
- Onoh v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 613 F.3d 596 (ADA preempts any state law having a connection to airline prices or services unless tenuous)
- Witty v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 366 F.3d 380 (state law preempted when claims would have significant economic effect on airline prices)
- Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282 (ADA preemption applies to claims against non-airline defendants pertaining to airline services)
- Charas v. TWA, 160 F.3d 1259 (distinguishing between personal injury and service-related ADA preemption)