Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hotel customers allege that lodging companies and a technology provider participated in an anticompetitive arrangement involving pricing tools. SAS Institute filed a separate motion to dismiss, arguing that the allegations against it were insufficient and distinguishable from other algorithmic-pricing cases.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied SAS’s separate motion. It found the allegations sufficiently different from authority on which SAS relied and declined to dispose of the claims through a stand-alone challenge. The court reserved the broader sufficiency analysis for its treatment of the defendants’ joint dismissal motion.
Key Takeaways
- Separate dismissal bid is denied in hotel algorithmic-pricing antitrust litigation.
- The ruling turns on the governing legal standard and the specific evidentiary record, not labels alone.
- Practitioners should preserve a clear, fact-linked record for review and remedy.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that algorithmic-pricing cases turn on the alleged relationships, information flows, and concerted conduct, not the mere use of software. Vendors cannot assume that describing themselves as technology providers will end the case before the complaint is assessed as a whole.