Karila v. EF Education First International, Ltd., 1:21-cv-10643

Plaintiff Kristine Karila paid for a Europe/North Africa tour (deposit then full balance) that was later cancelled/shifted (April trip undersubscribed; May trip postponed due to COVID-19).
Defendants EF Education First International (EF International) and Go Ahead Vacations (Go Ahead) refused to provide a full cash refund, offering a refund less the $300 deposit or vouchers; plaintiff accepted refund less deposit but pursued relief.
Karila sent a Chapter 93A demand letter seeking enforcement of 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 refund/substitution options and statutory damages for class members; defendants declined.
Karila sued under Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A; defendants moved to dismiss.
The court denied dismissal as to the claim based on 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 (plausible per se Chapter 93A violation and sufficient allegation of injury) but allowed dismissal of the claim based on 940 C.M.R. § 15.04 (no requirement in § 15.04 to disclose § 15.06 rights).
The court also held the Airline Deregulation Act did not preempt the § 15.06-based Chapter 93A claim (EF International not a foreign air carrier; Go Ahead might be an indirect air carrier but enforcement of § 15.06 lacked the required significant connection to airline prices/routes/services).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether violating 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 can supply a Chapter 93A claim	Karila: violation of § 15.06 is a per se unfair/deceptive practice under Chapter 93A and she alleged resulting damages	Defs: a § 15.06 claim requires more; “fail” implies fault and COVID cancellation was not the seller’s failure	Court: § 15.06 violation can be per se unfair under Chapter 93A; “fail” need not import fault; plaintiff plausibly alleged injury — claim survives dismissal
Whether 940 C.M.R. § 15.04 required disclosure of § 15.06 refund rights	Karila: § 15.04 requires disclosure of cancellation/refund options under § 15.06	Defs: § 15.04 requires disclosure of the seller’s own refund/cancellation policy, not the AG’s § 15.06 provisions	Court: § 15.04 does not require disclosure of § 15.06 rights; dismissal of § 15.04-based claim allowed
Whether the Airline Deregulation Act preempts the Chapter 93A claim based on § 15.06	Karila: state-law consumer protection claim does not meaningfully regulate airline prices/routes/services and so is not preempted	Defs: Go Ahead is an indirect air carrier (and EF International arguably a foreign air carrier); refund claims relate to prices/services and are preempted	Court: EF International not a foreign air carrier; although Go Ahead fits indirect-air-carrier role, enforcing § 15.06 does not have the significant connection to airline price/route/service required for preemption — no preemption

Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 460 Mass. 500 (Mass. 2011) (Attorney General regulations can define per se unfair or deceptive practices under Chapter 93A)
DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2011) (preemption requires a direct connection or significant effect on airline prices/services)
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (broad preemption under the Airline Deregulation Act to prevent state laws that affect airline prices/routes/services)
Am. Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1995) (state consumer claims may be preempted when they interfere with airline pricing/service regulation)
Buck v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 476 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (state claims seeking refunds of airline-related charges can relate to airline prices and be preempted)
United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Flores–Galarza, 318 F.3d 323 (1st Cir. 2003) (preemption analysis examines whether state law has a forbidden significant effect on carrier prices/routes/services)
Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, Inc., 445 Mass. 790 (Mass. 2006) (Chapter 93A requires a regulatory violation plus demonstrable injury causally linked to the unfair act)