The Office Cantonal Des Faillites De La Republique Et Du Canton De Geneve v. Expedia Inc
2:23-cv-00983
W.D. Wash.Feb 1, 2024Background
- Amoma SARL, a Swiss online hotel booking company, went bankrupt in September 2019; Plaintiff is its bankruptcy representative.
- Plaintiff alleges Amoma was forced out of business by anticompetitive actions orchestrated by Expedia Inc., via its majority-owned subsidiary, trivago, a hotel booking metasearch website.
- Trivago introduced a new "bid modifier" system for advertising hotel rooms, impacting how prominently offers appeared, which Plaintiff claims disadvantaged Amoma and favored Expedia's subsidiaries.
- Plaintiff brought claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (antitrust/attempted monopolization) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), alleging exclusionary conduct and market manipulation.
- Expedia moved to dismiss, arguing claims were time-barred and failed to state plausible claims under both the Sherman Act and the CPA.
- The court ruled on the motion to dismiss, analyzing statute of limitations, sufficiency of antitrust claims, and market definition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | Injury occurred when bid modifiers actually implemented (after June 30, 2019); complaint timely. | Plaintiff had notice of alleged harm in April-June 2019; claim is untimely. | Dismissal denied; claim timely as injury accrued upon implementation. |
| Anticompetitive Conduct & Control | Expedia controlled trivago and directed the exclusionary conduct, leading to Amoma’s exclusion. | Expedia did not direct trivago's actions; mere majority ownership insufficient for liability. | Alleges sufficient facts at pleading stage; parent may be liable for directing subsidiary’s anticompetitive actions. |
| Exclusionary Conduct (Predation) | Bid modifiers and lack of data sabotaged Amoma, serving no procompetitive purpose. | Design change aimed to improve trivago, and Amoma's failure to adjust caused its decline. | Sufficient to plausibly allege predatory conduct; complaint survives. |
| Antitrust / Consumer Harm, Market Definition | Amoma's exit reduced consumer choice and lower prices; online travel agencies are distinct market. | No antitrust injury alleged; market definition too narrow, should include hotel websites. | Antitrust injury adequately pled; market definition plausible at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility in federal complaints)
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard—requires more than conclusions)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (accrual of injury and statute of limitations for antitrust claims)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (parent's liability for actions of controlled subsidiary in antitrust)
- Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (difference between competitive and exclusionary conduct under Sherman Act)
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038 (market definition in antitrust cases)
- Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 (standards for attempted monopolization under Sherman Act)
- Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP, 592 F.3d 991 (product design changes and antitrust liability)