Consumers seek second chance in Las Vegas hotel price-fixing lawsuit
By Mike Scarcella
Sept 27 (Reuters) -Consumers suing major Las Vegas resorts over room rates have asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate their lawsuit, calling the case an important test for mounting antitrust claims against companies that share data using computer algorithms to guide pricing decisions.
In a filing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, the consumers argued they had presented enough evidence of illegal price-fixing to let the proposed class action move forward against defendants Wynn Resorts, Caesars, Treasure Island and others.
A Nevada federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in May. The plaintiffs had accused the hotel owners of colluding to overcharge guests by feeding sensitive internal information to a shared software platform that offered pricing recommendations.
“Today, competitors can use algorithms to collude more easily and effectively than in the past,” the plaintiffs told the San Francisco-based appeals court. They said the Nevada trial judge’s order “would effectively immunize algorithmic price fixing from antitrust scrutiny” if left in place.
Cendyn, Wynn Resorts, Caesars and Treasure Island either declined to comment or did not immediately respond to requests for one. The plaintiffs’ lawyers did not immediately respond to a similar request.
The hotels and software provider Cendyn have denied any wrongdoing.
The consumers’ lawsuit is part of a growing number of cases claiming hotels and other industries unlawfully use revenue maximization platforms to fix prices. A similar complaint against hotels in Atlantic City is pending in New Jersey federal court.
In the Las Vegas case, Chief U.S. District Judge Miranda Du dismissed the lawsuit after finding it failed to show that the hotels were using Cendyn's Rainmaker platform at the same time.
Du also said the system generated pricing recommendations that hotels were not bound to follow. She said the hotels had not agreed with each other to restrict how they price their rooms.
The consumers in their appeal countered that even non-binding guidelines such as price recommendations can be considered an “unreasonable” restraint within a competitive market.
They argued that the lawsuit hinges on whether the hotels' use of the platform disrupted competition, regardless of whether the companies followed its recommendations.
The case is Richard Gibson et al v. Cendyn Group et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3576.
Read more:
U.S. Justice Department accuses RealPage of driving up rents
Las Vegas hotels defeat price-fixing class action over room rates
CoStar, luxury hotels hit with US consumer price-fixing lawsuit
Renters suing RealPage get US backing in pricing lawsuits
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
