A PYMNTS Company

US: Southwest agrees to settle ‘capacity discipline’ antitrust class action suit

By  |  January 7, 2018

Southwest Airlines agreed to pay US$15 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit that charged the four largest US airlines with collusion.

The case, In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation, claimed that American, Delta, Southwest and United airlines conspired to keep fares unnaturally high by keeping capacity low.

Southwest denied any wrongdoing but said it agreed to settle to avoid the expense of class action litigation, which could last for years.

The carrier also agreed to provide “significant cooperation to Plaintiffs in pursuing their case against the non-settling Defendants,” although a Southwest spokesman said requests for cooperation “will now be more limited and targeted.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the US District Court of Washington DC gave preliminary approval to the settlement, which was reached over the course of three months of “hard-fought, arm’s length transactions,” according to court papers, and said the plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to object to the settlement.

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 at a time when the term “capacity discipline” was being bandied about by airline executives in earnings calls and conferences as the key to profitability.

Full Content: The New York Times

Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in Consumer Bureau Battle Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in CFPB Battle

Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Ruling in Consumer Bureau Battle

By  |  April 3, 2025

A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that had delivered a significant victory to government employees and consumer advocates opposing President Donald Trump’s efforts to curtail the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). According to Reuters, the decision maintains a temporary pause while the court considers an emergency request from the Justice Department to overturn the previous ruling entirely.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stopped short of reversing any provisions set forth by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in her March 28 ruling. Per Reuters, her decision had ordered the CFPB to reinstate dismissed employees, restore canceled contracts, and continue performing its legally mandated duties. However, the appellate judges left in place interim measures preventing the administration from taking further action against agency staff or halting essential operations.

Despite the temporary stay, the three-judge panel emphasized that the decision should not be interpreted as an indication of their final ruling. “The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the order stated, according to Reuters.

Related: CFPB Allows Some Operations to Resume Amid Legal Challenge

The Justice Department formally notified the court on Saturday of its intent to challenge Judge Berman Jackson’s order, seeking to overturn her directive that prevented the administration from erasing agency data, terminating employees, or discontinuing active contracts. The Trump administration’s moves against the CFPB began in February when the president dismissed the agency’s director and granted officials from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency extensive access to sensitive CFPB data systems. The actions resulted in widespread layoffs, contract cancellations, and office closures, prompting consumer protection groups and affected workers to file a lawsuit denouncing the changes as unlawful.

According to Reuters, agency leadership has since attempted to walk back some of these measures, a move Judge Berman Jackson described as likely “a charade for the court’s benefit.” While the appeals court’s temporary stay keeps aspects of the lower court’s ruling in place for now, the broader legal battle over the CFPB’s future remains unresolved.

Source: Reuters