TOWER v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGUESES, S.A.
2:22-cv-06746
| D.N.J. | Apr 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jon Tower, representing himself and similarly situated customers, filed a class action against TAP Air Portugal for failing to refund flight tickets after mass cancellations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020 – December 31, 2021).
- Defendant’s contract (Contract of Carriage) promised a full cash refund for canceled or substantially interrupted flights, but TAP issued vouchers rather than refunds during the pandemic.
- The U.S. Department of Transportation fined TAP $1,000,000 for failure to refund fares; many customers, including Tower, struggled to obtain refunds.
- Defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case, arguing the U.S. lacked jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to exhaust contractual remedies.
- After jurisdictional discovery and mediation, the parties reached a settlement: eligible class members will receive a 100% cash refund plus 7% interest, with attorney’s fees and incentive awards paid separately.
- The court reviewed the settlement for fairness and compliance with Rule 23 class certification requirements, finding them met, and granted preliminary approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to cash refunds under contract | Contract promised full refunds for cancellations | Issued vouchers due to pandemic, not cash refunds | Contract required cash refunds regardless of reason; sided with plaintiff |
| Class certification requirements under Rule 23 | Class shared common claims, numerosity, alignment | No explicit argument detailed on this issue | Requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy met |
| Fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement | Full refund plus interest is fair, efficient, and class is adequately represented | Not opposed to settlement | Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e); preliminarily approved |
| Notice plan for class members | Plan meets due process, provides sufficient notice | No opposition noted | Notice plan found sufficient and approved |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement in class actions—claims must depend on a common contention capable of class-wide resolution)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (requirements for class certification—unity and fair representation)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (additional prudential factors to consider in settlement approval)
- In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (class action settlement review—standards for fairness and adequacy)
- Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) (class action predominance inquiry focuses on liability, not damages)