010910-11/1253003 V1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACOB RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. and 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

 Defendants. 

 

No. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1
010910-11/1253003 V1 - i - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. NATURE OF ACTION .......................................................................................................1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................3

III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................3

IV. FACTS .................................................................................................................................5

A. Background ..............................................................................................................5

B. The Novel Coronavirus Shutdowns And United’s Resulting 

Flight Cancellations .................................................................................................6

C. United’s Refusal Of Passenger Refunds On Cancelled Flights ...............................8

D. Consumer Complaints Regarding United’s Refusal To Provide Passengers 

Refunds For Cancelled Flights Abound .................................................................10

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................11

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................15

COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE

BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT .........................................................................................15

COUNT II ALTERNATIVE COUNT FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACTS .......................................................................................................17

COUNT III UNJUST ENRICHMENT .........................................................................................21

COUNT IV CONVERSION .........................................................................................................22

COUNT V FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION ..............................................................23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................24

JURY DEMAND ...........................................................................................................................24

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:2
-1- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

Plaintiff, JACOB RUDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

for his Class Action Complaint against Defendants UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. and 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. (collectively “United”), based upon personal knowledge as to his 

own actions and based upon the investigation of counsel regarding all other matters, complains 

as follows: 

I. NATURE OF ACTION 

1. This Class Action Complaint comes during a time of unprecedented hardship for 

so many Americans, with each day bringing different news regarding the novel coronavirus 

COVID-19.1

 Social distancing, sheltering-in-place, and efforts to ‘flatten the curve’ have 

separated loved ones from their relatives, workers from their co-workers, and further isolated 

those already in or at risk of further isolation. It has decimated nationwide employment. Nearly 9 

in 10 Americans are now subject to a travel restriction, all to protect the health and welfare of the 

nation during this public health emergency. 

2. The separation caused by COVID-19 and related protective efforts has 

particularly impacted travel, including air travel. Opportunity and ability to travel is flat-out 

eliminated for many Americans, both financially and physically. A trip to the grocery store or 

pharmacy has been deemed a necessity and permitted; a spring break trip with family or travel 

for a business meeting, is not. 

 1

 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are mindful of the severe impact of the coronavirus on all 

aspects of society. In particular, they are aware of the burden this crisis places on small 

businesses and larger corporations alike, as well as the drain it imposes on scarce judicial 

resources. Plaintiff is compelled, however, to file now to preserve his rights and those of the 

proposed class. To minimize the burden on the Court and to reasonably accommodate 

Defendants, Plaintiff will work with Defendants to reach an agreeable schedule for their response 

to this Class Action Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:3
-2- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

3. As a result, United has slashed its flight schedules, resulting in thousands of flight 

cancellations for thousands more passengers. But such passengers face additional hardship if 

they booked their flights with United. To add to the difficulties such passengers already face, 

United refuses to issue monetary refunds to passengers with canceled flights. It does so even 

though all airline passengers are entitled to a refund if the airline cancels a flight, regardless of 

the reason the airline cancels the flight. Instead, United represents it will only rebook and/or 

provide travel vouchers, which expire in one year from the original ticket date. 

4. The need for monetary refunds over travel vouchers is pressing now. Travel 

vouchers provide little security in this public crisis, particularly where many individual 

Americans need money now to pay for basics like food and rent, not restrictive, temporary 

credits towards future travel. 

5. Reflecting the need to provide individuals with such assistance, the Coronavirus 

Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES”) is set to provide a bailout to the airlines, 

providing them about $58 billion in aid. But despite the faucet of taxpayer money that will flow 

its way, United refuses to comply with the law or operate in the interests of its customers. 

6. United’s actions have financially damaged Plaintiff and the Class Members. 

Plaintiff requested a refund for three tickets on a cancelled flight and was entitled to a refund. 

But like so many other passengers, United denied that request. United has engaged in unfair and 

deceptive conduct through its policy to refuse refunds, limiting and forcing customers into a 

rebooked flight or travel voucher instead of returning their money. As a result, Plaintiff brings 

this action because Plaintiff and the Class Members did not receive refunds for United cancelled 

flights, lost the benefit of their bargain and/or suffered out-of-pocket loss, and are entitled to 

recover compensatory damages, trebling where permitted, and attorney’s fees and costs. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:4
-3- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented by this Complaint 

because it is a class action arising under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. 

L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), which explicitly provides for the original jurisdiction of the 

Federal Courts of any class action in which any member of the Class is a citizen of a State 

different from any Defendant, and in which the matter in controversy exceeds in the aggregate 

sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff alleges that the total claims of 

individual Class members in this action are in excess of $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, 

exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) and (6). Plaintiff is a 

citizen of Minnesota, whereas Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Illinois for purposes of 

diversity. Therefore, diversity of citizenship exists under CAFA as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(d)(2)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that more than two-thirds of all of the members 

of the proposed Class in the aggregate are citizens of a state other than Illinois, where this action 

is originally being filed, and that the total number of members of the proposed Class is greater 

than 100, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B). 

8. Venue is appropriate in this District because Defendants maintain their principal 

places of business within the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, United’s largest hub (both 

in terms of passengers carried and the number of departures) is Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport, which is within the Northern District of Illinois. And on information and belief, events 

and transactions causing the claims herein, including United’s decision-making regarding its 

refund policy challenged in this lawsuit, has occurred within this judicial district. 

III. PARTIES 

9. Plaintiff Jacob Rudolph is a citizen and resident of the State of Minnesota. 

Plaintiff is and continues to be immediately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a police 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:5
-4- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

officer, local officials declared a local state of emergency for his city and his department’s 

administration cancelled all vacations (including those involving air travel), instituted modified 

work schedules, and additional protective health measures. In addition, Plaintiff is prohibited 

from being in crowds, otherwise he will be subject to quarantine restrictions, creating substantial 

hardship in a police department of 11 officers. Despite requesting and being entitled to a refund 

for his cancelled flight, United has refused to provide Plaintiff a refund. 

10. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff purchased three tickets for domestic travel to occur 

on April 4, 2020 for travel from Hilton Head Island, South Carolina (HHH) to Minneapolis/St. 

Paul, Minnesota (MSP), with a connecting flight in Chicago, Illinois (ORD). United ultimately 

cancelled his flight. 

11. Plaintiff purchased the tickets directly from United though the United.com 

website, paying United $1,521.45 ($904.20 in tickets, $137.40 in taxes and fees, and $479.85 in 

additional travel options). 

12. On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a written refund request for his tickets 

purchased through United’s website. 

13. However, between March 31, 2020 and April 1, 2020, United separately and 

completely denied Plaintiff’s refund request for each ticket, declaring that his ticket purchases do 

not qualify for a refund. Instead, on March 31, 2020, United represented in writing that Plaintiff 

was only allowed a rebooking or ticket credit for travel within one year of the original ticket 

issue date. In addition, on April 2, 2020, Plaintiff spoke with a United customer service 

representative, who again refused Plaintiff’s refund request on the same grounds. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:6
-5- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

14. At the time of his ticket purchase, Plaintiff understood that he would be entitled to 

a refund if his flight was cancelled and Plaintiff was actually deceived by United regarding his 

right to a refund and his options following United cancelled flights. 

15. Defendant United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to 

do business in Illinois as a foreign corporation with a principal place of business at 233 South 

Wacker Drive in Chicago, Illinois. 

16. Defendant United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do 

business in Illinois as a foreign corporation with a principal place of business at 233 South 

Wacker Drive in Chicago, Illinois. 

17. United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and its principal, whollyowned subsidiary is United Airlines, Inc. 

18. Collectively, Defendants are called “United.” 

IV. FACTS 

A. Background. 

19. In a typical service scenario, United and its regional carriers operate over 4,900 

flights a day to 362 airports across six continents, with hubs at Chicago O'Hare International 

Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Denver International Airport, George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, A.B. Won Pat International Airport, 

San Francisco International Airport, and Washington Dulles International Airport. 

20. In 2019, United operated over 1.7 million flights carrying over 162 million 

customers, utilizing 791 mainline aircraft for hub-to-hub travel, with the airline’s regional 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:7
-6- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

carriers operating another 581 regional aircraft.2 For its services, United posted $43.2 billion in 

operating revenue in the year ending December 31, 2019. 

21. United sells its airline seat inventory and fares through the United’s direct 

channels (such as United’s direct-to-consumer sales website, www.united.com, and the 

company’s mobile applications) and through traditional travel agencies and online travel 

agencies. With each ticket sale, United collects passenger identification information, including 

name, address, and telephone information. 

22. But regardless of the method by which United sells its tickets, United has engaged 

in unfair, deceptive, and unjust conduct: it is refusing to issue refunds to passengers for 

coronavirus related flight cancellations. 

B. The Novel Coronavirus Shutdowns And United’s Resulting Flight Cancellations. 

23. On December 31, 2019, governmental entities in Wuhan, China confirmed that 

health authorities were treating dozens of cases of a mysterious, pneumonia-like illness. Days 

later, researchers in China identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people in Asia, 

subsequently identified and referred to as the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. By January 21, 

2020, officials in the United States were confirming the first known domestic infections of 

COVID-19. 

24. Due to an influx of thousands of new cases in China, on January 30, 2020, the 

World Heath Organization officially declared COVID-19 as a “public health emergency of 

international concern.” 

 2

 United has contracts with regional carriers to provide regional service branded as United 

Express, carrying traffic that connects to the company’s hubs and allows flights to smaller cities 

that cannot be provided economically with mainline aircraft. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:8
-7- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

25. The U.S. State Department warned travelers to avoid traveling to China and on 

January 31, 2020, the U.S. federal government restricted travel from China, thus beginning travel 

restrictions affecting passengers ticketed on domestic and international air travel to and from the 

United States. 

26. By February 29, 2020, COVID-19 restrictions continued to spread across the 

globe. As the number of global cases rose to nearly 87,000, the U.S. federal government issued 

its highest-level warning, known as a “do not travel” warning, for areas in Italy and South Korea 

that are most affected by the virus. The government also banned all travel to Iran and barred 

entry to any foreign citizen who had visited Iran in the previous 14 days. 

27. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a 

pandemic. That same day, American officials announced yet another travel ban expansion, this 

time blocking most visitors from continental Europe to the United States. 

28. Travel restrictions domestically began on March 16, 2020, with seven counties in 

the San Francisco, California area announcing shelter-in-place orders. Other states, counties, and 

municipalities have followed the shelter-in-place orders and as of the drafting of this Class 

Action Complaint, 297 million people in at least 38 states, 48 counties, 14 cities, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico are being urged to stay home. 

29. As the restrictions expanded and virus fears mounted, United cancelled flights in 

the United States because of the spreading impact of the coronavirus. 

30. By March 4, 2020, United made public announcements of cuts to its April and 

May 2020 flight schedules. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:9
-8- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

31. On March 10, 2020, United executives announced that the company was planning 

for public concern about the virus to increase before it gets better and for domestic bookings to 

get worse in the weeks to come. 

32. And while it initially anticipated only 10–20% in flight cancellations for April and 

May travel, by March 15, 2020, it changed positions and increased service cuts announced just 

11 days earlier, cutting its flights by 50% for April and May. That same day, United’s executives 

also announced to investors they expected the flight cancellations would continue and extend 

into the summer travel period. 

C. United’s Refusal Of Passenger Refunds On Cancelled Flights. 

33. As United announced flight cancellations (combined with decreased domestic 

bookings), United took a variety of steps to make it difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to 

receive any refund on pandemic cancelled flights. Defendants wanted to retain the money paid to 

Defendants, given the severe economic losses it was incurring related to pandemic flight 

cancellations. It does so despite consumers’ right to receive a refund for unused transportation, 

even for non-refundable tickets. 

34. Within seven days in March 2020, United changed its refund policy four times 

regarding passenger rights when flights are altered, misrepresenting to passengers on United 

cancelled flights that such passengers were limited to rebookings or travel vouchers. United 

communicated its refund policy through its website, customer service representatives, and other 

methods. 

35. Ostensibly consistent with passenger rights, pre-pandemic, if United cancelled a 

flight or changed a flight time by over two hours, passengers could receive a full refund. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:10
-9- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

36. But on March 7, 2020, the same day the World Health Organization reported 

there were now over 100,000 cases of COVID-19 in 94 countries, United altered its policy to 

require a flight time change of at least 25 hours to receive a full refund. 

37. Yet after consumers complained, it tried out two more policies, a vague March 10 

policy permitting refunds only if “departure or arrival time significantly changes,” followed by a 

March 12 policy permitting refunds only if the flight is moved by over six hours. 

38. More recently, on March 14, the company settled on its current policy of credits, 

not refunds—even with six-hour-plus changes—until a year has passed from the original date of 

purchase, at which time a refund may be issued. 

39. United’s policy change to deny full refunds has been described by one airline 

travel website editor “as possibly ‘the single most damaging airline policy in recent memory.’”3

40. United’s efforts to refuse and deny customers refunds contradicts established 

transportation requirements that operate for the benefit and protection of airline consumers. 

41. As the Department of Transportation advises consumers of their rights: “If your 

flight is cancelled and you choose to cancel your trip as a result, you are entitled to a refund for 

the unused transportation—even for non-refundable tickets. You are also entitled to a refund for 

any bag fee that you paid, and any extras you may have purchased, such as a seat assignment.”4 

42. Put another way, “[a] passenger is entitled to a refund if the airline cancelled a 

flight, regardless of the reason, and the passenger chooses not to be rebooked on a new flight on 

that airline.”5

 

 3

 https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-lifestyle/united-tweaks-its-flight-refund-policy-andcustomers-are-not-happy 

4

 https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/flight-delayscancellations 

5

 https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/refunds 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:11
-10- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

43. Passengers are similarly entitled to a refund if an airline makes “a significant 

schedule change and/or significantly delays a flight and the passenger chooses not to travel.”6

D. Consumer Complaints Regarding United’s Refusal To Provide Passengers Refunds 

For Cancelled Flights Abound. 

44. Consistent with Plaintiff’s experience, consumer complaints regarding United’s 

unfair, deceptive, and unjust conduct are many. A few examples follow. 

45. For example, one passenger complained on Twitter he had three flights for his 

family of five canceled by United Airlines. He was refused a refund and told “no other airlines 

are giving refunds.”7

46. Another passenger’s wedding in Hawaii at the end of March 2020 was cancelled 

due to COVID-19. She does not want a future travel credit, because she can no longer afford to 

travel to Hawaii.8

 

47. An increasing number of complaints has led the U.S. Department of 

Transportation to disclose on April 3, 2020 that it “is receiving an increasing number of 

complaints and inquiries from ticketed passengers, including many with non-refundable tickets, 

who describe having been denied refunds for flights that were cancelled or significantly 

delayed.” The Department reminded carriers, including United, of their “longstanding obligation 

to provide a prompt refund to a ticketed passenger when the carrier cancels the passenger’s flight 

 6 Id. 

7

 Greg Leonow (@Gregleonow), Twitter (March 21, 2020) (replying to United Airlines 

(@United)). 

8

 Dawn Eldridge (@dawnzo8), Twitter (March 20, 2020) (replying to United Airlines 

(@United)). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:12
-11- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

or makes a significant change in the flight schedule and the passenger chooses not to accept the 

alternative offered by the carrier.”9

48. Sensitive to such consumer complaints, members of the U.S. Senate have urged 

United in a joint letter to provide full cash refunds to passengers with cancelled flights during the 

pandemic: 

We write to urge your airline to issue full cash refunds to all

customers who cancel their flights during the COVID-19 crisis, 

and to American citizens who encounter flight cancellations while 

stranded in countries that implemented travel restrictions. The

ongoing pandemic is placing enormous financial strain on millions 

of Americans, and families need cash to pay for essentials such as 

food, housing, and medical care. In light of this pressing need and 

the unprecedented bailout—to the tune of $25 billion—that the 

airline industry just received from Congress, we believe your 

company has a moral responsibility to provide real refunds, not

travel vouchers, to consumers, and to support State Department 

efforts to repatriate any American citizens trying to come home.

10

49. United not only has a moral responsibility to provide real refunds, it has a legal 

obligation to do so, particularly in light of the substantial bailout it received from American 

taxpayers, including Plaintiff and the Class Members. 

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

50. Plaintiff sues under Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and a Class defined as follows: 

All persons in the United States that purchased tickets for travel on 

United Airlines flights scheduled to operate to, from, or within the 

United States from March 1, 2020 to the present and who sought a 

refund and were refused or who seek a refund in the future. 

 9

 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-

04/Enforcement%20Notice%20Final%20April%203%202020_0.pdf 

10 Letter to Oscar Munoz, CEO of United Airlines, Inc. from U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey, 

et al. (March 31, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:13
-12- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling 

interest, and Defendants’ legal representatives, predecessors, successors, assigns, and employees. 

Further excluded from the Class is this Court and its employees. Plaintiff reserves the right to 

modify or amend the Class definition, as appropriate, during this litigation. 

51. The definition of the Class is unambiguous. Plaintiff is a member of the Class he 

seeks to represent. Class Members can be notified of the class action through ticketing contact 

information and/or address lists maintained in the usual course of business by Defendants. 

52. Class Members are so numerous and geographically dispersed that their 

individual joinder of all Class Members is impracticable. The precise number of Class members 

is unknown to Plaintiff but may be ascertained from United’s records. Given the thousands of 

flight cancellations made by United, that number greatly exceeds the number to make joinder 

possible. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Courtapproved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, Internet 

postings, and/or published notice. 

53. United has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and 

the Class Members, making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief regarding 

the Class. 

54. Additionally, common questions of law and fact predominate over the questions 

affecting only individual Class Members. Some of the common legal and factual questions 

include: 

a. Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged; 

b. Whether Defendants have a policy and/or procedure of denying refunds to 

Class Members for cancelled flights; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:14
-13- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

b. Whether Defendants’ policy and/or procedure of denying refunds to 

passengers on cancelled flights is unfair, deceptive, and/or misleading; 

c. Whether Illinois law applies to the nationwide class; 

d. Whether Defendants violated consumer protection statutes and/or false 

advertising statutes and/or state deceptive business practices statutes; 

e. Whether Defendants violated the common law of unjust enrichment; 

f. Whether Defendants converted Plaintiff and the Class Members refunds 

and/or rights to refunds; 

g. Whether Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiff and 

the Class Members, and 

h. The nature and extent of damages and other remedies to which the conduct 

of Defendants entitles the Class Members. 

55. Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal rights 

sought to be enforced by the Class Members. Similar or identical statutory and common law 

violations and deceptive business practices are involved. Individual questions pale by 

comparison to the numerous common questions that predominate. 

56. The injuries sustained by the Class Members flow, in each instance, from a 

common nucleus of operative facts—Defendants’ misconduct. In each case Defendants have 

cancelled flights yet denied refunds to Class Members for such cancelled flights. 

57. The Class Members have been damaged by Defendants’ misconduct through 

United’s practice of cancelling flights yet denying refunds to Class Members for such cancelled 

flights. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:15
-14- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

58. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other Class Members. Plaintiff 

paid for airline tickets and was actually deceived. 

59. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff is 

familiar with the basic facts that form the bases of the Class Members’ claims. Plaintiff’s 

interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class Members he seeks to represent. 

Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action litigation and intends to 

prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff’s counsel has successfully prosecuted complex class 

actions, including consumer protection class actions. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly 

and adequately protect the interests of the Class Members. 

60. The class action device is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class Members. The relief sought per 

individual members of the Class is small given the burden and expense of individual prosecution 

of the potentially extensive litigation necessitated by the conduct of Defendants. It would be 

virtually impossible for the Class Members to seek redress individually. Even if the Class 

Members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. 

61. Individual litigation of the legal and factual issues raised by the conduct of 

Defendants would increase delay and expense to all parties and to the court system. The class 

action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of a single, 

uniform adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

Given the similar nature of the Class Members’ claims and the absence of material differences in 

the state statutes and common laws upon which the Class Members’ claims are based, a 

nationwide Class will be easily managed by the Court and the parties. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:16
-15- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS

PRACTICES ACT 

62. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

63. At all times, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act 

(“Consumer Fraud Act”) has prohibited consumer fraud in trade or commerce: 

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of 

any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, 

misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of 

any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the 

concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the 

use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the

"Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act", approved August 5, 

1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared 

unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or 

damaged thereby. 

815 ILCS 505/2. 

64. Pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act, Defendants had a statutory duty to refrain 

from unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the sale of airline tickets to Plaintiff and the 

proposed Class Members and in handling refunds otherwise due to Plaintiff and the Class 

Members. 

65. Defendants intended that Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members rely on its 

material statements and omissions and unfair or deceptive acts regarding its refunds of airline 

tickets due to the unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including Defendants’ unfair conduct, 

misrepresentations, and omissions of material fact regarding the ticket refunds: 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:17
-16- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

a. Defendants’ representations that passengers could only obtain a voucher 

or rebooking for a cancelled flight; 

b. Defendants’ policies of limiting class members to travel vouchers and/or 

rebookings in lieu of refunds was deceptive, unfair, and unlawful; 

c. Defendants committed unlawful acts by promoting, advertising, and 

selling airline tickets in a manner that violated passengers’ rights to 

refunds; and 

d. Defendants committed unfair and deceptive acts by promising a refund 

and reneging on that promise. 

66. Defendants’ unfair practice, deceptive representations, and material omissions to 

Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members were, and are, unfair and deceptive acts and practices. 

67. Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts and practices occurred while conducting 

trade or commerce. 

68. Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct while at the same time obtaining, under 

false pretenses, obtaining and retaining significant sums of money from Plaintiff and the 

proposed Class Members. 

69. Plaintiff and members of the Class were actually deceived by Defendants’ 

misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact. 

70. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions of 

material fact, Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members were damaged and have suffered an 

ascertainable loss, in an amount to be determined at trial, including but not limited to amounts 

for tickets on United cancelled flights. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:18
-17- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

COUNT II 

ALTERNATIVE COUNT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 

STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS 

71. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows: 

72. Count II is brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated 

residents of each of the 50 states for violations of the state consumer protection acts including:11 

a. the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska 

Stat. § 45.50.471, et seq.; 

b. the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-1521, et seq.; 

c. the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code § 4-88-101, 

et seq.; 

d. the California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 

et seq. and 17500, et seq.; 

e. the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, 

et seq.; 

f. the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-101, 

et seq.; 

g. the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen Stat. Ann. § 42-

110, et seq.; 

h. the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. Code § 2513, et seq.; 

i. the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901, 

et seq.; 

 11 Plaintiff also places Defendant on notice that he intends to amend his complaint to seek 

recovery for Class Members under the following statutes: Alabama Code § 8-19-10(e); Alaska 

Statutes § 45.50.535; California Civil Code § 1782; Georgia Code § 10-1-399; Indiana Code § 

24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5 § 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws 

Chapter 93A, § 9(3); Texas Business & Commercial Code § 17.505; West Virginia Code § 46A6-106(b); and Wyoming Statutes § 40-12-109.

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:19
-18- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

j. the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. 

§ 501.201, et seq.; 

k. the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-390, 

et seq.; 

l. the Hawaii Unfair Competition Law, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-2, et seq.; 

m. the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code. Ann. § 48-601, et seq.; 

n. the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 

ILCS 501/1, et seq.; 

o. the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-2, 

et seq.; 

p. the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa Code § 714.16, et seq. 

q. the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-623, et seq.; 

r. the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.110, 

et seq.; 

s. the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, LSAR.S. 51:1401, et seq.; 

t. the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 5, § 207, 

et seq.; 

u. the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law, 

§ 13-301, et seq.; 

v. the Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practices for Consumers 

Protection Act, Mass. Gen Laws Ann. Ch. 93A, et seq.; 

w. the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 

§ 445.901, et seq.; 

x. the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F, 

et seq.; 

y. the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407, et seq.; 

z. the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. St. § 59-1601, et seq.; 

aa. the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600, 

et seq.; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:20
-19- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

bb. the New Hampshire Regulation of Business Practices For Consumer

Protection, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A:1, et seq.; 

cc. the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8, et seq.; 

dd. the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1, et seq.; 

ee. the New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices, 

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, et seq.; 

ff. the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen 

Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.; 

gg. the North Dakota Consumer Fraud Act, N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15, et seq.; 

hh. the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01, 

et seq.; 

ii. the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 751, et seq.; 

jj. the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605, 

et seq.; 

kk. the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 

73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq.; 

ll. the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-

5.2(B), et seq.; 

mm. the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-

10, et seq.; 

nn. the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection, 

S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-1, et seq.; 

oo. the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101, 

et seq.; 

pp. the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Code 

Ann., Bus. & Con. § 17.41, et seq.; 

qq. the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code. Ann. § 13-11-175, et 

seq.; 

rr. the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2451, et seq.; 

ss. the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-199, 

et seq.; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:21
-20- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

tt. the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, 

et seq.; 

uu. the West Virginia Consumer Credit And Protection Act, W. Va. Code 

§ 46A, et seq.; 

vv. the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Wis. Stat. § 100.18, et seq.; 

and 

ww. the Wyoming Consumer Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-12-101, 

et seq. 

73. The unfair and deceptive practices engaged in by Defendants described above, 

occurring in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, constitute unfair methods of 

competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of each of the aboveenumerated statutes. 

74. Defendants’ acts and practices were unfair and created a likelihood of confusion 

or misunderstanding and misled, deceived, or damaged Plaintiff and members of the Class in 

connection with the sale and refunds of airline tickets. Defendants’ conduct also constituted the 

use or employment of deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the 

knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of a material fact with intent that others rely 

upon the concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of 

goods or services, whether or not a person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged in 

violation of each of the above-enumerated statutes. 

75. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, seek monetary damages, 

treble damages, and such other and further relief as set forth in each of the above-enumerated 

statutes. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:22
-21- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

COUNT III 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

76. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

77. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants sold Plaintiff and the members of the 

Class airline tickets for travel to, from, and within the United States. 

78. United has benefitted from its unlawful acts by receiving payments for the sale of 

tickets on cancelled flights, though United has no right to deny Plaintiff and the Class Members 

refunds for tickets purchased on United cancelled flights. 

79. Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred upon Defendants a benefit in the 

form of money for tickets on specific flights. In paying for such flights, Plaintiff and the Class 

Members conferred benefits that were non-gratuitous. 

80. Defendants appreciated or knew of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred upon it 

by Plaintiff and members of the Class. 

81. Defendants accepted or retained the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by Plaintiff 

and members of the Class, with full knowledge and awareness that, because of Defendants’ 

unconscionable wrongdoing, Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to refunds for 

cancelled flights. Retaining the non-gratuitous benefits conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff 

and members of the Class under these circumstances made Defendants’ retention of the nongratuitous benefits unjust and inequitable. 

82. Because Defendants’ retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by 

Plaintiff and members of the Class is unjust and inequitable, Plaintiff and members of the Class 

are entitled to, and seek disgorgement and restitution of their Defendants’ wrongful profits, ticket 

revenue on United cancelled flights, and benefits in a manner established by the Court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:23
-22- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

COUNT IV 

CONVERSION 

83. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

84. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have an undisputed right to 

immediate refunds in lieu of rebookings and/or travel vouchers for their purchase of tickets on 

flights cancelled by United. 

85. United wrongfully exercised control over and/or intentionally interfered with the 

rights of Plaintiff and members of the Class by limiting passengers on United cancelled flights to 

either a rebooked flight or a travel voucher. All the while Defendants have unlawfully retained 

the monies Plaintiff and the Class Members paid for tickets on United cancelled flights. 

86. United deprived Plaintiff and the other members of the Class the value they paid 

for tickets on United cancelled flights as well as their right for a refund. 

87. Plaintiff and members of the Class have requested and/or demanded that United 

issue refunds for United cancelled flights. 

88. This interference with the rights and services for which Plaintiff and members of 

the Class paid damaged Plaintiff and the members of the Class, in that they purchased tickets 

and, as such, United has deprived Plaintiff and members of the Class of the right to their 

property, in this case, the amounts paid for tickets on cancelled flights. 

89. Plaintiff and members of the Class may exercise their right to full refunds of all 

amounts paid for tickets on United cancelled flights. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:24
-23- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

COUNT V 

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 

90. Plaintiff restates and re-alleges, and incorporates herein by reference, the 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

91. Defendants intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiff and the Class Members 

regarding their rights to a refund on United cancelled flights, including but not limited to as 

reflected in United’s refund policies. 

92. Defendants intentionally and actively misrepresented to Plaintiff and Class 

Members that passengers on United cancelled flights are limited to rebookings or travel vouchers 

that must be used within one year of the purchase date. 

93. Defendants’ representation was false. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and members 

of the Class are entitled to refunds on United cancelled flights, not just rebookings or travel 

vouchers. 

94. Defendants’ misrepresentation was made fraudulently. Defendants made its 

representations with knowledge that Plaintiff and Class Members were entitled to refunds on 

United cancelled flights and also knowing that Plaintiff and Class Members were not limited to 

rebookings or travel vouchers for United cancelled flights. 

95. Instead, when United made the representation regarding the rights to refunds 

and/or post-United flight cancellation options, United intended that Plaintiff and the Class 

Members would rely on it. 

96. Plaintiff and the Class Members relied on Defendants’ representations. 

97. The reliance by Plaintiff and the Class Members on Defendants’ representations 

was reasonable. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:25
-24- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

98. Defendants’ representations proximately caused damage to Plaintiff and the Class 

Members. By misrepresenting that passengers on United cancelled flights are limited to 

rebookings or travel vouchers, Defendants financially damaged Plaintiff and members of the 

Class. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Class Members request that the Court enter an order or 

judgment against Defendants including: 

A. Certification of the action as a Class Action under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and 

his counsel of record as Class Counsel; 

B. Damages in the amount of unrefunded monies paid for United airline tickets; 

C. Actual damages, statutory damages, punitive or treble damages, and such other 

relief as provided by the statutes cited; 

D. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; 

E. Other appropriate injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including an 

order enjoining Defendants from retaining refunds for United cancelled flights; 

F. The costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and 

G. All other relief to which Plaintiff and members of the Class may be entitled by 

law or in equity. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on his own behalf and on behalf of Class Members. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:26
-25- 

010910-11/1253003 V1

Dated: April 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

By /s/ Steve W. Berman 

Steve W. Berman 

1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 

Seattle, WA 98101 

(206) 623-7292 

steve@hbsslaw.com 

Daniel J. Kurowski 

Whitney K. Siehl 

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 

455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 

Chicago, IL 60611 

(708) 628-4949 

dank@hbsslaw.com 

whitneys@hbsslaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02142 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/06/20 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:27