Opinion ID: 379262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ad

Text: 41 Western first contends that the Special Master erred in finding the September 16 newspaper ad to be false, misleading and deceptive. 10 The Special Master found as follows: 42 20. On September 16,1973, in response to the substantial competitive threat, Western caused the publication of an ad similar to its west coast ad in the Twin Cities and other larger cities in Minnesota (Ex. 21). The ad appeared in the Travel Sections of the Minneapolis and St. Paul Sunday papers (as well as those of Rochester, Duluth, and other Minnesota cities). As with the west coast ads, it was substantially the work product of BBD&O. 43 21. It was false, misleading, or deceptive in the following ways: 44
45 No travel group charter has ever taken off to Hawaii from the Twin Cities. All those scheduled had to be cancelled.was false and misleading in that if this language is interpreted as stating that all Twin Cities/Hawaii TGCs ever scheduled had been cancelled, it was false since Mainline Travel and MSAA/ITA were advertising Twin Cities/Hawaii TGCs simultaneously with Western's ad and the TGCs had not been cancelled. If the language is interpreted as meaning that all Twin Cities/Hawaii TGCs scheduled to depart prior to September 16th had been cancelled, it was equally misleading since none had ever been so scheduled. 46
47 The upshot of it all being that you can plunk down a couple of hundred dollars (or more) for airfare and even more for ground arrangements. And end up going absolutely nowhere. 48 was misleading in that under the TGC regulations, it was impossible for a prospective passenger to ever forfeit money paid to the organizer for ground arrangements. 49 c. The statement: Find out your hotel (if you buy an optional ground package). Nobody's sure yet either. was false and misleading in that the statement was not true as of the date of the ad for ITA's TGCs. Mr. Russell and Mr. Edberg of MSAA testified that on September 16, a passenger's hotel was known at the time of reservation. 50 d. The ad was false and misleading in stating that the TGC organizer could charge a five percent transfer fee. By contract ITA could not do so. 51 e. The ad was false and misleading in stating that the TGC passenger was virtually out of luck within 45 days before departure. The standby list could be utilized within 45 days of departure and in fact was so used on ITA's 1973 TGCs to London. For this same reason, the statement If your boss switches your vacation, for example, you've had it, was misleading. 52 f. The statement that the travel agent understands all the pros and cons of Travel Group Charters was misleading since at the time of the ad travel agents did not know much about the TGC concept. Also, Western was, at the same time, discouraging travel agents from selling TGCs. 53 g. The statement: 54 Nationally, over 2,600 travel group charters have already been cancelled. That's 9 out of 10 flights that were scheduled. 55 was misleading since this national experience was not representative of the Twin Cities' experience with TGCs. In particular, all of the TGCs scheduled out of Minneapolis/St. Paul to London in 1973 and operated by ITA/MSAA operated successfully. It was also misleading because it referred to flights listed in prospectuses filed with the CAB and was not limited to cancellations occurring because of inability to attract sufficient passengers to allow operations under the Rules, the only circumstance which would be relevant to the alleged informational purpose of the ad. 56 Western argues, inter alia, that (1) the seven specific statements were not found to be materially false or misleading; (2) the ad was not considered in the context in which it appeared (a lengthy travel section of a bulky Sunday newspaper along with a large number of other travel ads, quoting from Western's brief); and (3) that in any event, the statements in the ad are not false, misleading or deceptive. 57 We think that implicit in the causation of damage finding, discussed infra, materiality is shown. Secondly, the ad was submitted in at least one exhibit in the context of the newspaper travel section and the Special Master had the opportunity to consider the ad in that context. 58 As to the content of the ad itself, we find it unfruitful, and additionally unnecessary, to examine individually the seven allegedly false, deceptive or misleading statements. The issue is first, whether the ad as a whole, contributed to the anti-TGC campaign, and second, whether the campaign constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act. 59 It will be relevant, however, in the analysis leading to a determination of reasonableness of the anti-TGC campaign, to consider the personality of the ad as a whole. For an example of one of the stronger of the Special Master's seven findings insofar as ITA is concerned, Western admits that the statement in Finding 21(a), (a)ll those scheduled had to be cancelled, was incorrect; on September 16, when the ad appeared, ITA and MSAA, Mainline and Travel World were actively promoting their Hawaii TGCs obviously they were not cancelled. The weakest finding of fact insofar as ITA is concerned is Finding 21(f) (t) he statement that the travel agent 'understands all the pros and cons of Travel Group Charters' was misleading. What is most important here is not that the travel agents did not know all the pros and cons of TGCs, but that, as part of its overall anti-TGC campaign, Western was (1) discouraging travel agents from selling TGCs to their customers and, additionally; (2) stating that Western hoped the travel agents would book their customers on Western, and finally; (3) telling potential customers, through the September 16 ad, to see their travel agent for supposedly an objective appraisal of TGCs. 60 Thus keeping in mind that the ultimate question is whether the anti-TGC campaign was an unreasonable restraint of trade under section 1 of the Sherman Act, we hold that there is sufficient evidence to support the Special Master's finding of facts that the ad is false, deceptive and misleading. We further agree that the ad was part of the anti-TGC campaign and must be considered in determining whether or not an unreasonable restraint of trade occurred.