Paid too much to fly since late 2022?
The allegations have not been proven, and no class has been certified.
Fare figures: complaint ¶ 11, citing Bureau of Transportation Statistics data for 693 U.S. routes. Allegations have not been proven.
The proposed class
You may be included if…
You bought a ticket for a domestic U.S. flight, and…
- It was from American, Delta, Southwest, Alaska or JetBlueAlaska includes Hawaiian Airlines for tickets bought on or after September 18, 2024, when Alaska Air Group acquired it.
- You bought it on or after November 1, 2022The proposed class period runs from November 1, 2022 until the effects of the alleged conduct end.
- You bought it directly or through the airline’s agentTickets bought from the airline directly, or through an agent acting on the airline’s behalf. The proposed class covers both individual travelers and entities, such as businesses.
No class has been certified. If the court certifies a class or approves a settlement, class members will receive notice explaining their rights. Excluded are the defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; the co-conspirators identified in the complaint; government entities; and the assigned judge, the judge’s staff and immediate family.
What the lawsuit alleges
How your flight search allegedly became a rival’s intelligence.
Competing airlines would normally guard what travelers are searching for and what fares they offer. The complaint alleges these airlines handed that data to an airline-owned middleman and got their rivals’ data back in return.
You search for a flight.
Every search, and every fare an airline offers in response, creates “flight shopping data” — whether or not you buy a ticket.
Airlines feed the hub.
The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that each airline defendant supplied its confidential shopping data to 3Victors, which ATPCO acquired in December 2023.
The data is pooled.
3Victors’ Iris platform allegedly pools that data on a give-to-get basis: in its own words, “the more you contribute, the more you receive.”
Rivals’ playbooks come back.
Tools like PriceEye and DemandView allegedly show competitors’ pricing and building demand, so airlines can match discounts fast and hold fares up.
Source: complaint ¶ 11. These are allegations in the complaint. They have not been proven.
The legal claims
Why the lawsuit says this breaks the law.
Two counts under the Sherman Act, and two forms of relief under the Clayton Act.
Count One: hub-and-spoke conspiracy
The airlines, with ATPCO and 3Victors at the hub, allegedly conspired to fix, raise and stabilize domestic airfares.
Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Count Two: unlawful information exchange
The defendants allegedly exchanged current, granular, non-public pricing and shopping data among competing airlines.
Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1
Treble damages
People injured by an antitrust violation can seek three times their actual damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees. Any amount would be determined by the court or a jury.
Clayton Act § 4, 15 U.S.C. § 15
Shutting the pipeline down
The complaint asks the court to bar the defendants from exchanging current or forward-looking, non-public pricing and shopping data among competing airlines.
Clayton Act § 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26
General information about the claims in the complaint, not legal advice.
Case at a glance
Brown v. ATPCO
Brown et al. v. Airline Tariff Publishing Company d/b/a ATPCO et al. Active. No class has been certified.
Key dates
Case timeline
- 1992
DOJ sues ATPCO and eight airlines
The government alleges airlines used ATPCO’s fare-distribution system to reach agreements to increase fares. Consent decrees follow.
- 2003–04
Consent decrees expire
The decrees, which the complaint says appear to have restricted those practices, expire.
- Jul 2023
A shared data “clean room”
ATPCO announces a data clean room where “collaborating airlines” can combine their shopping data, according to the complaint.
- Dec 2023
ATPCO acquires 3Victors
3Victors’ PriceEye tool promises airlines “the most complete view of competitor pricing,” the complaint alleges.
- Oct 2026
DemandView launches
The complaint alleges the tool mines more than 1.4 billion daily search records to show where demand is building.
- Nov 3, 2026
Levi & Korsinsky files the complaint
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.
Questions
Short answers to the ones we hear most.
Answers to the questions travelers ask most about the airline price-fixing lawsuit. Still have a question? Our team is here to help.
The complaint alleges that American, Delta, Southwest, Alaska and JetBlue pooled confidential flight-search, pricing and passenger-demand data through airline-owned ATPCO and its subsidiary 3Victors. By seeing each other’s data, the airlines allegedly reduced the pressure to compete on price and kept domestic fares higher than they would otherwise be.
The proposed class includes all persons and entities in the United States that bought a ticket for domestic air travel from American, Delta, Southwest, Alaska (including Hawaiian Airlines since September 18, 2024) or JetBlue, directly or through an agent acting on the airline’s behalf, from November 1, 2022 onward. The court has not yet decided whether to certify a class.
No. Class members do not need to take any action at this time. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, notice will explain your options. You are welcome to contact our team for information about the case.
No. Class members do not pay anything out of pocket to be part of the case. Any attorneys’ fees must be approved by the court.
ATPCO (Airline Tariff Publishing Company) is a Herndon, Virginia company that is owned by airlines and directed by a board of airline pricing executives, according to the complaint. 3Victors is a data analytics company ATPCO acquired in December 2023; it sells airlines pricing and demand tools such as PriceEye and DemandView.
It is the information generated every time a traveler searches for a flight: the search itself and the fare offers returned, whether or not the traveler buys a ticket. The complaint alleges this data reveals where demand is building before it shows up in bookings.
United is not a named defendant in this complaint, and the proposed class covers tickets bought from the five named airline defendants. The complaint identifies United, as an ATPCO board airline, as a possible co-conspirator and states the plaintiffs will amend if more participants are identified.
Damages for the class, trebled under federal antitrust law, and a permanent injunction barring the defendants from exchanging current or forward-looking, non-public pricing and shopping data among competing airlines. The allegations have not been proven, and there is no guarantee of any recovery.
The defendants will respond to the complaint, and the court will rule on any motions. The plaintiffs will later ask the court to certify the class. Check this page for updates.
Please remember:
This page is general information about the complaint, not legal advice. The allegations have not been proven, and no class has been certified. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send confidential information until one has been established. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Questions about the airline price-fixing lawsuit?
Contact Ellen Noteware at Levi & Korsinsky for information about the case.
Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.