Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc.

The federal district court for the Central District of California allowed a consumer plaintiff to proceed with claims for damages under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act against Delta Air Lines Inc. (Delta) for alleged misrepresentations that Delta was a carbon-neutral airline. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff relied on Delta’s carbon-neutral representations and suffered an economic injury from buying Delta flights in 2021 and 2022. The court further found, however, that because the plaintiff did not have current plans to fly Delta in the future and because Delta had pivoted from carbon-neutral advertising to a “net zero by 2050” goal, the plaintiff allege the imminent threat of future harm necessary to establish standing for injunctive relief under the CLRA. The court noted that the plaintiff had not pleaded Delta’s “net zero by 2050” representations in the operative complaint and that it therefore was not necessary to address whether there was genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing regarding these representations. The court also denied Delta’s motion to strike a “sham declaration” submitted by the plaintiff in support of a motion for class certification. The court found that the declaration and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony did not clearly contradict each other on various issues raised by Delta regarding the plaintiff’s statements about her awareness and understanding of and reliance on the carbon-neutral representations. The court also declined to strike the plaintiff’s errata changes to the deposition transcript.

The federal district court for the Central District of California found that a consumer plaintiff’s addition of allegations that she was a “longstanding and loyal Delta customer” who intended to purchase flights from the company in the future were sufficient to establish standing for claims under California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws. The court previously dismissed claims seeking injunctive relief under these laws because the plaintiff did not allege an intent to purchase future flights. In allowing the claims to proceed, the court found that the plaintiff “sufficiently alleged a particularized injury because refraining from purchasing future Delta flights, notwithstanding her desire to continue purchasing Delta flights and being an environmentally concerned consumer, is an injury that affects her in a harmful and personal way.” The specific alleged injury was “her inability to rely on the validity of Delta’s representations that it is a carbon-neutral airline, despite her intention to continue flying Delta.” The court further found that this injury was actual and imminent and that a favorable ruling ordering Delta to make truthful representations regarding its environmental impact would redress the alleged injury.