A recent decision by the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals may offer a unique path for airline passengers to pursue rights against airlines for issues relating to prices, rates, or services.
As Timothy M. Ravich recently commented in an article by the Daily Business Review, in Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., a class of airline passengers has
brought a putative federal class action lawsuit against the airline on the
basis of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), alleging that Spirit Airlines conducted an enterprise by
means of racketeering activity, e.g.,
mail and wire fraud involving the concealment and misrepresentation of airfares
and user fees.
While the district court dismissed the action on the
basis or preemption, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated that
decision:
Because
federal laws do not preempt other federal laws, subsequent legislation could
preclude Plaintiffs’ claims only if Congress had repealed the provisions of
RICO, at least insofar as they authorized Plaintiffs’ actions. Congress did not
do so expressly through the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) … [a]nd we
find no ‘repeal by implication’ because Congress has not exhibited the
requisite clear and manifest intent. The
ADA explicitly preempted state laws but, notably, said nothing about any
federal cause of action. Moreover, a saving clause found in the ADA did not
disturb any other remedies provided by law. Quite simply, the two laws are not
irreconcilably in conflict, nor was the ADA clearly intended as a substitute
for RICO. Applying the strong presumption against implied repeals, we are
constrained to conclude that RICO supplements, rather than subverts, federal
regulation of air carriers.
In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized at least one
other circumstance in which a federal court found that a RICO action was not
precluded by airline deregulation policy.
Cancellation fees charged for flights in the months following September
11, 2001 was the issue in All World
Prof’l Travel Servs., Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc. where a federal district
court in California recognized that a travel agency could have complained to
the DOT about an airline’s conduct, but was not required to submit a RICO-type mail
and wire fraud claim to the DOT. On this basis, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that, “we agree with the All World court that civil RICO claims
predicated on mail and wire fraud are not precluded by the ADA simply because
they involve fraud arising out of pricing, fees, and advertising in the airline
industry."
The Ray case is remarkable in that civil lawsuits
arising under RICO are seldom used to address consumer complaints against the
airline industry.
As the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion indicates, only one case relates RICO and the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The theory being tested in Ray appears to be a novel one as applied
to airline airfare advertising specifically, and an infrequently litigated
theory as applied to the Airline Deregulation Act generally. As a practical
matter, traveling under RICO to vindicate alleged violations of airline
passengers’ rights is not surprising considering that few private rights of
action for the direct use of airline passengers under the Airline Deregulation
Act. While consumers might complain to the Department of Transportation for
issues relating to airline fares or services, it is usually up to the DOT to
enforce penalties. Thus, though still at the pleading stage, Ray (taking the lead of All World Prof’l Travel, Inc.) might
establish RICO as a viable strategy for travelers to end-run decades-long
frustration with federal passengers’ rights laws that expressly limit or
extinguish private causes of action arising from airline prices, routes, and
services.