Vail Resorts, Alterra Mountain and two other major US ski resort operators are pushing back against allegations that they conspired to inflate lift ticket and season pass prices, asking a federal court in Colorado to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit that threatens to scrutinize how the industry shares business information.
The companies, along with industry organizations named in the case, filed motions to dismiss on Oct. 23, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to identify evidence of an agreement to coordinate prices, according to reporting published by Law360.
The latest filings mark a significant development in a legal dispute that has drawn attention to the pricing strategies of some of North America’s largest ski resort operators.
Vail Resorts, Alterra, Boyne Resorts and Powdr Corp. contend that the lawsuit improperly characterizes routine industry research, commercial relationships and shared technology as evidence of anticompetitive conduct.
The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed Aug. 5 by three skiers, alleges that the resort operators exchanged confidential pricing, revenue and cost information through reports produced by RRC Associates and activities involving the National Ski Areas Association.
According to Reuters, the plaintiffs claim the information exchanges enabled the companies to coordinate pricing decisions, contributing to increases of more than 55% in peak daily lift ticket prices at major destination resorts since 2020.
The defendants dispute that interpretation.
In their latest defense, the resort operators argue that participation in industry research programs does not establish an agreement among competitors. They also challenge the plaintiffs’ theory that companies could have coordinated their conduct indirectly through shared intermediaries.
The companies maintain that separate business relationships with the same industry organizations do not, by themselves, demonstrate a conspiracy.
Their legal arguments also question whether the plaintiffs have adequately defined the market allegedly affected by the conduct.
According to SnowBrains, the defendants contend that the complaint improperly combines distinct products and services, including lift tickets, season passes, equipment rentals and food and beverage offerings, into its analysis of competition.
The resort operators additionally reject the suggestion that their pricing decisions have moved in parallel.
Their defense cites Vail Resorts’ decision to reduce Epic Pass prices by 20% in 2021 while Alterra’s Ikon Pass pricing remained unchanged, arguing that the difference undermines allegations of coordinated pricing.
The defendants also challenge claims involving Aspenware, a resort-commerce technology platform used by several operators. They argue that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the platform was used to exchange confidential pricing information between competing companies.
The National Ski Areas Association has separately defended its role, arguing that publishing industry reports, organizing conferences and representing resort operators are legitimate trade association activities rather than evidence of collusion.
We’d love to be your preferred source for news.
Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!
RRC Associates likewise maintains that its research services represent conventional market analysis and do not establish unlawful price coordination, according to SnowBrains.
Related: Vail Resorts Directors Face Shareholder Suit Over Alleged Ski-Pricing Antitrust Failures
The latest legal defense comes as Vail Resorts and Alterra fight a separate antitrust lawsuit challenging their Epic and Ikon multi-mountain season passes.
In that case, filed in March, four skiers allege that the companies use expensive single-day lift tickets and bundled access to regional resorts to encourage customers to purchase multi-mountain passes, limiting competition and consumer choice.
Both companies moved to dismiss those claims in June and reinforced their positions in September.
According to legal news service MLex, Vail and Alterra argued in Sept. 10 filings that consumers are not required to purchase multi-mountain passes and that discounted bundles are a common commercial practice. The companies also maintained that most skiers do not purchase the passes, challenging the plaintiffs’ contention that the products effectively force consumers into bundled purchases.
Vail has argued that its various ticket and pass options provide different ways to purchase access to the same skiing services. Alterra has challenged the assertion that destination resorts and regional mountains constitute separate markets for purposes of the alleged illegal bundling arrangement, according to Reuters.
The litigation has also expanded into shareholder disputes involving Vail Resorts. Two shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in August and October allege that company directors failed to adequately address legal risks associated with the alleged antitrust conduct.
Vail’s board has sought to pause one of those cases while the underlying consumer lawsuits proceed, according to SnowBrains.
For the latest price-fixing lawsuit, the next major procedural deadline is Dec. 18, when the plaintiffs are scheduled to respond to the dismissal motions. The defendants’ replies are due Jan. 22, 2027.
A separate hearing concerning the proposed class allegations in the Epic and Ikon Pass litigation is scheduled for Dec. 8.
Source: Law360
Add as Preferred Source