The suit, brought by a group of regular airline passengers, sought to reverse the acquisition after it closed in September 2024. The court granted Alaska Airlines’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, holding that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient factual allegations to support their proposed market definitions or demonstrate how the merger would likely harm competition. The court reserved decision on whether to allow further leave to amend.
The plaintiffs alleged that the merger harmed competition in three geographic markets: Hawaii to the U.S. mainland, interisland flights within Hawaii, and Hawaii to Pacific and Asian destinations. The court held that the complaint offered no factual allegations to make these proposed markets plausible, noting that passengers would not view flights between disparate routes—such as Hawaii to San Francisco versus Hawaii to Boston—as interchangeable alternatives.
The court further held that the plaintiffs failed to allege anticompetitive effects in two of those markets because Alaska did not compete with Hawaiian prior to the merger. In the Hawaii-to-mainland market, where the combined entity holds 40 percent of seat capacity, the court ruled that plaintiffs’ own allegations that airlines compete freely across the entire United States precluded a finding of undue market power.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for divestiture, noting it is an extreme remedy and that plaintiffs had abandoned this argument by failing to address Alaska’s opposition in their brief. The court found no equitable basis for unwinding a consummated merger under these circumstances.
While the motion to dismiss was granted, the court reserved decision on whether to allow further leave to amend. Plaintiffs have been ordered to file a letter by May 22, 2026, explaining how they would amend their complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the order.