For frequent fliers hoping to leave their credit cards in their wallets, “cashless” cabin policies appear to be here to stay.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently rejected a lawsuit alleging that Continental Airlines’ credit card requirement for in-flight purchases violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).
The plaintiff in the case, Rosen v. Continental Airlines Inc., sought to purchase a headset and an alcoholic beverage during a flight from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Newark. However, he was informed that Continental only accepted payments by credit card or debit card. Because he did not have either of these forms of payment, the plaintiff was unable to make the purchases and later filed suit under the CFA.
The plaintiff specifically alleged that that Continental’s refusal to accept cash on its flights amounted to unlawful “discrimination against low income individuals.” He further maintained that the no-cash policy prevented him from enjoying in-flight amenities, and resulted in “severe mental anguish and emotional distress.”
The Appellate Division ultimately agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff’s claims were pre-empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The specific provision at issue prohibits states from interfering with the deregulation process. It states, in relevant part, that states “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier….”
As explained by the court, the ADA’s broad language has been interpreted to preclude any state cause of action relating to a service provided by an air carrier. In this case, the Appellate Division concluded that the sale of a headset and an alcoholic beverage “relat[es] to price, routes, or service.”
The decision is good news for airlines, because it favors flexibility and efficiency in their delivery of their services. Although some passengers may be inconvenienced, the naturally competitive marketplace can be counted upon to limit any unreasonable actions. Yet the decision does suggest something to consider before your next flight.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to the legal issues involved, please contact me, Charles Yuen, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Court Rules Airlines Can Require Credit Cards For In-Flight Services
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
For frequent fliers hoping to leave their credit cards in their wallets, “cashless” cabin policies appear to be here to stay.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently rejected a lawsuit alleging that Continental Airlines’ credit card requirement for in-flight purchases violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).
The plaintiff in the case, Rosen v. Continental Airlines Inc., sought to purchase a headset and an alcoholic beverage during a flight from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Newark. However, he was informed that Continental only accepted payments by credit card or debit card. Because he did not have either of these forms of payment, the plaintiff was unable to make the purchases and later filed suit under the CFA.
The plaintiff specifically alleged that that Continental’s refusal to accept cash on its flights amounted to unlawful “discrimination against low income individuals.” He further maintained that the no-cash policy prevented him from enjoying in-flight amenities, and resulted in “severe mental anguish and emotional distress.”
The Appellate Division ultimately agreed with the lower court that the plaintiff’s claims were pre-empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act (ADA). The specific provision at issue prohibits states from interfering with the deregulation process. It states, in relevant part, that states “may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier….”
As explained by the court, the ADA’s broad language has been interpreted to preclude any state cause of action relating to a service provided by an air carrier. In this case, the Appellate Division concluded that the sale of a headset and an alcoholic beverage “relat[es] to price, routes, or service.”
The decision is good news for airlines, because it favors flexibility and efficiency in their delivery of their services. Although some passengers may be inconvenienced, the naturally competitive marketplace can be counted upon to limit any unreasonable actions. Yet the decision does suggest something to consider before your next flight.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to the legal issues involved, please contact me, Charles Yuen, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
