In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. Georgia
137 F.R.D. 677 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a complex antitrust price-fixing case, a class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) if the plaintiffs can demonstrate, through credible expert testimony, a plausible methodology for using generalized proof to establish the elements of conspiracy, class-wide impact, and a formula for calculating damages.

Facts:

Several major domestic airlines were members of and used the services of the Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPC), a computerized fare information system.
Plaintiffs allege that beginning on January 1, 1988, these airlines engaged in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy.
The alleged conspiracy involved an agreement among the airlines not to engage in price competition on routes to or from each other's hub airports.
The airlines also allegedly used the ATPC system to communicate with each other to discuss, signal, and agree upon fare levels, rather than just to publish fares.
As a result of this alleged conduct, millions of passengers purchased domestic airline tickets for travel to or from a defendant's hub at prices that were artificially inflated.

Procedural Posture:

Over forty private antitrust actions were filed by various plaintiffs against several major domestic airlines and the Airline Tariff Publishing Company.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions for pretrial proceedings.
The consolidated cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the case was too complex for class treatment.
The district court, at the defendants' request, held a limited evidentiary hearing focused on the expert testimony related to the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) appropriate for a massive, nationwide class of airline passengers alleging a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy, where the defendants argue the complexity of the airline industry prevents common questions of law or fact from predominating?

Opinions:

Majority - Shoob, District Judge

Yes, class certification is appropriate. For a class action to be certified under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions of law or fact must predominate over individual ones, and the class action must be a superior method of adjudication. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a viable method for using generalized proof for all three essential elements of their antitrust claim: the conspiracy, the fact of injury (impact), and damages. The court relied heavily on the testimony of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Beyer, who presented a credible analysis showing that the airline industry, despite its apparent complexity, has a structured pricing system and that air travel is a sufficiently standardized product for antitrust purposes. Dr. Beyer proposed valid statistical methodologies, such as 'yield analysis,' to prove that all class members were impacted by paying higher-than-competitive prices and to calculate damages on a class-wide basis using a formula. Furthermore, the court found the class action device to be superior, as individual claims are too small to be litigated alone, making a class action the only fair method for adjudication. The court rejected defendants' arguments that the case would be unmanageable due to its size, noting that modern technology and procedural tools could be used to manage the litigation.

Analysis:

This decision is a significant example of a court's willingness to certify a massive class action in a complex, nationwide industry against powerful defendants. It underscores the principle that courts should not inquire into the merits of the case at the certification stage but should instead conduct a 'rigorous analysis' of whether the Rule 23 requirements are met. The court's acceptance of expert testimony proposing a methodology for common proof of impact and damages is crucial; it establishes that plaintiffs can overcome the 'predominance' hurdle even in markets with diverse products and prices, so long as they can present a plausible, formulaic approach. This ruling reinforces the class action as a vital tool for consumer antitrust enforcement, preventing defendants from using the sheer scale of their alleged wrongdoing as a shield against liability.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"