Delta Air Lines Class Action Cleared For Takeoff Over CrowdStrike Chaos

A federal judge has allowed key parts of a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines to proceed, stemming from massive flight disruptions caused by CrowdStrike's faulty Windows update in July 2024. The Register reports: Delta blamed its reliance on Microsoft software and the CrowdStrike incident for its woes. However, according to the plaintiffs in the action (PDF), both companies offered the airline assistance, which Delta turned down. Customers of the Atlanta-based carrier affected by the delays and cancellations claim they struggled to secure refunds and compensation from the airline. The plaintiffs allege that "although Delta offered reimbursement of eligible expenses through their website and app, Delta failed to clarify that the customer would only be receiving a partial reimbursement."

"Furthermore, Delta did not disclose to its customers that acceptance of the partial reimbursement would release any legal claims the customer may have against Delta until after the customer 'click[ed] on the button to accept the partial reimbursement.'" The action concerns both US domestic and international travel. The former is covered by US Department of Transportation rules, which require airline agents to "inform customers of their right to a refund ... before making an offer for alternative transportation, travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in lieu of refunds."

The latter claims come under the Montreal Convention, which is designed to be a single, universal treaty to govern airline liability. Delta, which estimated its operational losses at around half a billion dollars due to the outage, sought to dismiss the complaint. While the US District Judge, Mark H. Cohen, granted the airline's motion to dismiss some of the claims, he permitted others to proceed. These were Count I (breach of contract based on failure to refund) and Count XII (violation of the Montreal Convention).

It's better to put all court cases on hold

[Anonymous Coward]

The president will decide the outcome with an executive order. I mean, really.. Treaty? Montreal?? C'mon

I hope the both lose.

[Gravis Zero]

What we need is a long and drawn out decade or more battle with multiple levels of appeals that ultimately costs both companies dearly until one finally gets the Pyrrhic victory that they deserve.

Fuck 'em both.

Re:

[XanC]

I was also assuming this was about a lawsuit between Microsoft (and/or CrowdStrike) and Delta.

It takes a careful reading, because there isn't anything in the summary that clearly states what we're talking about, but this is a class-action lawsuit against Delta by Delta's customers.

IANAL

[careysub]

But I am pretty sure nothing presented after a button is clicked can be claimed to be consented to by said button.

No different from having someone sign a blank page then printing a contract on it.

Re: IANAL

[ihavesaxwithcollies]

That and blank check pricing. Late stage capitalism at its best. Im shocked companies havent added a forced arbitration clause where the arbitrator is the ceoâ(TM)s wife or brother.

Re:

[Shadow of Eternity]

There's no such thing as "late stage capitalism". What you're complaining about is corporate socialism.

Re:

[Big Hairy Gorilla]

and yet that's what every terms of service says: if you use our service you've consented to all terms.
Also they will claim full copyrights and rights of inspection to your your data. It's sometimes couched in legalese, but the intent is there. Also, let's face it, after your data is captured, if someone back at the company decides to use the data for some inappropriate use, how will you ever find out? Also, you essentially have no recourse, so this is how come everybody is snatching up your data as quickly

Re:

[sabbede]

Unlike the other OSs which can never be infected and never have security flaws, right?

Is this really necessary?

[Horus1664]

I have intimate knowledge of Crowdstrike from my former life in cybersecurity. It is a good product. What they did was unforgivable but to try to seriously damage them via some lawsuit where lawyers will have inflated the damage in the hope of a higher settlement benefits nobody except the lawyers and some face saving for Delta.

We're all supposed to be on the same side when it comes to fighting digital crime and vandalism and I just don't see how this helps. Crowdstrike are well aware of their profile and

Re:

[mjwx]

I have intimate knowledge of Crowdstrike from my former life in cybersecurity.

Can't we think of something else, more constructive?

Apologies for cutting your good post short for brevity, but I don't think it's Crowdstrike that's the issue in play here, otherwise every other airline that had an outage would be getting sued. From the fine article:

Customers of the Atlanta-based carrier affected by the delays and cancellations claim they struggled to secure refunds and compensation from the airline. The plaintiffs allege that "although Delta offered reimbursement of eligible expenses through their website and app, Delta failed to clarify that the customer would only be receiving a partial reimbursement." "Furthermore, Delta did not disclose to its customers that acceptance of the partial reimbursement would release any legal claims the customer may have against Delta until after the customer 'click[ed] on the button to accept the partial reimbursement.'"

In the EU, the former alone would be a serious no-no resulting in a serious smack down from either the ADR (dispute arbitrator) or if it gets bad, the regulatory authority itself (EASA, CAA) but we're not in Europe.

The problem with the later is similar where an airline or any business cant f

Re:

[keltor]

This particular lawsuit has almost nothing to do with CrowdStrike.