Predicted 95.7% Injury Rate of Proposed Class Members ​Supports Predominance Finding

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify two classes of airline ticket purchasers and determined class issues predominated over individual issues with regard to antitrust injury. “Plaintiffs assert that fuel surcharge increases represent price increases to passengers. This is partially based on a common-sense theory that ‘there would be no reason to collude on fuel surcharges if [a current airline defendant and a former airline defendant] were going to continue to compete on base fares.’ Plaintiffs also rebut Defendant’s theoretical assertion with a practical examination of the data. Plaintiffs’ expert purportedly found ‘no decline in base fares when fuel surcharges were implemented, indicating that there was no base fare offset for fuel surcharges.’ He ultimately determined that ‘95.7% of the Japan Class itineraries were impacted by [defendant’s] allegedly anticompetitive conduct.’ . . . Even if a small number of customers of Japan Class members received discounted fares, it is not an obstacle to class certification. . . . Defendant will have the opportunity to present evidence on the merits of Plaintiffs’ approach during the trial. . . . But for now, Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that ‘all or virtually all’ of their proposed classes suffered an injury.”

In re: TransPacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, 3-07-cv-05634 (CAND 2018-08-08, Order) (Charles R. Breyer)

2018-08-10T11:40:03+00:00August 10th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|