United Argues to Dismiss In-Flight Wi-Fi Class Action

Earlier this week, United Airlines Inc. argued that a class action lawsuit accusing the company of falsely advertising that its in-flight services would include Wi-Fi and Direct TV outside of the continental U.S. should be dismissed.

Lead plaintiff Cary David alleged in her class action lawsuit that the airline tricked her into purchasing DirectTV mid-flight, but the services then became unavailable as she proceeded to leave the continental U.S. on her fight.

The airline moved to dismiss the Wi-Fi class action lawsuit in May and the plaintiff opposed the motion in early June. The plaintiff argued that it would be premature to dismiss the claims without exploring the evidence further.

In its motion supporting dismissal, United argued that passengers are informed of the limits of the in-flight Wi-Fi and DirectTV services. “United’s DirecTV contract provides and discloses that ‘Live DirecTV programming is not available while the aircraft is outside of the continental United States,’ and United’s Wi-Fi contract provides and discloses that ‘Wi-Fi service is available over the continental U.S.,’” United wrote in its motion.

“Plaintiff cannot save her deficient claims by disavowing the applicable contracts and disclosures,” it continued. “Because United did not breach any promise to plaintiff, and expressly disclosed the very information that plaintiff claims was concealed, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.”

United also argued that the plaintiff’s arguments are also preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 in response to the plaintiff’s argument that whether the act applies to DirectTV and WiFi services is unclear according to the judicial system.

United argued further that because the plaintiff only purchased DirectTV and not the Wi-Fi service, the class action should be dismissed. “Without alleging the terms of her alleged contracts with United, plaintiff cannot plausibly plead that United breached those contracts; United’s conduct could be (and was) entirely consistent with its obligations,” United contended in its motion supporting dismissal.

The airline also took issue with the plaintiff’s screen shot of the alleged covered area for Wi-Fi and DirectTV services. “The image that plaintiff attached is shown to passengers only when their plane returns to a coverage zone after being out of coverage,” United pointed out in its  motion. “Plaintiff could have taken the picture attached to her declaration only when her flight was over the continental United States.”

“Plaintiff’s Complaint is factually and legally meritless,” says United in its motion. “Plaintiff alleges that United did not disclose to passengers that its DirecTV and Wi-Fi services are limited to the continental United States. Her unjust enrichment, fraud, and so- called breach of contract claims are premised entirely on that theory,” United explains. “But United’s DirecTV contract provides and discloses that ‘Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft is outside of the continental United States,’ and United’s Wi-Fi contract provides and discloses that ‘Wi-Fi service is available over the continental U.S.’”

David is represented by Mark C. Gardy, Jennifer Sarnelli and Orin Kurtz of Gardy & Notis LLP and David L. Eisbrouch of Eisbrouch Marsh LLC.

The United In-Flight Wi-Fi Class Action Lawsuit is Cary M. David, et al. v. United Continental Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01926, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.