In Stewart et al. v. Gogo Inc., Northern District of California Judge Edward M. Chen denied Gogo Inc.’s motion to dismiss a putative class action, alleging that Gogo’s unfair long-term contracts with airlines created a monopoly. Plaintiffs allege Gogo carved out a dominant industry position to the detriment of consumers and the wider market space through a series of long-term exclusive contracts with the major domestic airlines in the U.S. that thwarted competition on the merits and on price, and allowed Gogo to charge supra-competitive prices. According to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint, these contracts tied 85 percent of the airline Internet market. In denying Gogo’s motion to dismiss, the court rejected Gogo’s argument that the 85 percent figure was wrong and incomplete because the plaintiffs did not fully explain how they reached that number. According to the court, plaintiffs made specific enough allegations for this stage of the litigation, and whether the plaintiffs’ figures are correct is a matter for discovery. And even if the 85 percent figure is not accurate, the plaintiffs had alleged contracts with enough major airlines, including American and Delta that the suit should advance, the court found.
One Comment