On September 30, a New Jersey federal court dismissed with prejudice an antitrust class action complaint alleging that several Atlantic City hotel operators engaged in a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy through their use of software algorithms to set room rental rates.  Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, No. 1:23-CV-02536 (D.N.J.).

According to the court, class plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Atlantic City hoteliers suffered from the “same factual deficiencies identified” by a Nevada federal court in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 2:23-cv-00140 (D. Nev.), which rejected price-fixing allegations arising from Las Vegas hotels’ use of the same software.  The court concluded that, in both cases, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of unlawful agreements between the hotels at the “rim” of the alleged “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy for several reasons.

As an initial matter, class plaintiffs alleged no direct evidence of agreements among the hotels.  Accordingly, they were required to allege that the hotels engaged in “parallel conduct” that was suggestive of an underlying agreement.  But the court determined that plaintiffs’ allegations of parallelism were lacking in two critical respects.  First, although all defendants currently use the room pricing software at-issue, each hotel began using that software at different times over a fourteen-year period.  Second, the court noted, the defendant hotels did not delegate pricing authority to the software and instead frequently rejected its suggestions.  According to the court, these allegations of non-parallelism “make[] it quite implausible that [defendants] tacitly agreed to anything, much less to fix the prices of their hotel rooms.”

Plaintiffs also failed to allege that defendants improperly exchanged confidential data through the room pricing software in service of an underlying price-fixing agreement.  Although plaintiffs alleged that the hotels submitted their own non-public room pricing and occupancy data to the software vendor, they failed to allege that their “proprietary data are pooled or otherwise comingled” with competing hotels’ data “into a common dataset against which the algorithm runs.”  Without further allegations that the software’s pricing recommendations were “based on a pool of confidential competitor data,” the court explained, each hotel’s confidential data could have been used to generate price recommendations only for that hotel, inconsistent with the inference of “a plausible price-fixing agreement between the Casino-Hotels.”

We previously summarized the decisions in Gibson v. Cendyn Group here and here.  The Cornish-Adebiyi decision also follows the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s joint Statements of Interest in the Atlantic City hotels case and two other so-called “algorithmic pricing” cases, previously covered here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of August Gweon August Gweon

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on data privacy, cybersecurity, antitrust, and technology policy issues, including issues related to artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. August leverages his experiences in AI and technology policy to help clients understand complex technology developments, risks…

August Gweon counsels national and multinational companies on data privacy, cybersecurity, antitrust, and technology policy issues, including issues related to artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies. August leverages his experiences in AI and technology policy to help clients understand complex technology developments, risks, and policy trends.

August regularly provides advice to clients on privacy and competition frameworks and AI regulations, with an increasing focus on U.S. state AI legislative developments and trends related to synthetic content, automated decision-making, and generative AI. He also assists clients in assessing federal and state privacy regulations like the California Privacy Rights Act, responding to government inquiries and investigations, and engaging in public policy discussions and rulemaking processes.

Photo of Brandon Gould Brandon Gould

Brandon Gould is special counsel in the firm’s Washington DC office. He is an antitrust and class action litigator who represents clients across multiple industries with extensive experience in the banking, financial services, and technology industries. Brandon is knowledgeable about quantitative economic analysis…

Brandon Gould is special counsel in the firm’s Washington DC office. He is an antitrust and class action litigator who represents clients across multiple industries with extensive experience in the banking, financial services, and technology industries. Brandon is knowledgeable about quantitative economic analysis and experienced with working with economists and other experts in litigation and investigation settings. He also maintains an active pro bono immigration practice that includes both direct representation of asylum seekers and data-driven immigration policy litigation.