I think that parts of the District Court's decision are alarming, however, I think it worth pointing out that there are some significant limitations on its scope. To take one example, two of the most promsing claims, one made under the MN Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the other a based on common law negligent misrepresentation, were dismissed by the court for a reason that is only applicable to the airlines industry. Under the Airline Deregulation Act, the States cannot enact legislation covering many airline activities. Such state legislative activity is said to be preempted by federal regulation in the area. As such, it is quite possible that had this case been brought against any company other that an aireline, these claims would have survived a motion to dismiss.

That said, the District Court's position on some of the other claims is kind of spooky.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/257/27772#27772