Judge grounds flyers' attempt to undo Alaska-Hawaiian airlines merger

Alaska Airlines bought out Hawaiian Airlines in 2024, which a group of customers claimed had increased flight costs and reduced services in violation of antitrust laws.

By Edvard Pettersson Courthouse News April 24, 2026

(CN) — A federal judge on Friday dismissed an antitrust lawsuit by six people who want to undo the 2024 merger of the carriers because, they claim, it has resulted in fewer choices for flights, higher costs and reduced services.

U.S. District Judge Micah Smith agreed with Alaska Airlines, which paid $1.9 billion for Hawaiian Airlines, that the plaintiffs — who say they regularly fly on the airlines — had failed to provide a legally sufficient argument why the extreme remedy of divestiture would be the appropriate redress for their purported harm.

The Joe Biden appointee also concluded that the plaintiffs hadn’t met their burden, as required under U.S. antitrust law, to define a proper geographic market that has been impacted by the combination of the two airlines and how the merger has resulted in fewer choices for flights, higher costs and reduced services.

“For example, plaintiffs’ anecdotal suggestion that they have experienced price increases in a small handful of routes, or less favorable route options, does not plausibly support the conclusion that Alaska has been raising prices or diminishing routes because of the merger,” Smith wrote.

Likewise, the judge wasn’t persuaded that the lawsuit could proceed based on the claim that the merger has harmed Hawaii’s economy and the well-being of local residents. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s observation that every merger can create economic readjustments that adversely affect some people, Smith said such readjustments don’t necessarily give rise to an antitrust claim.

The complaint “has not offered factual allegations that, accepted as true, plausibly show that the economic readjustments are anticompetitive effects — that is, that the effects are the result of Alaska’s greater market power or the elimination of a competitor,” he said.

In 2024, the judge previously presiding over the case had dismissed the complaint because the plaintiffs had failed to argue they had standing to bring the case since none of them had claimed that they ever flown on Hawaiian or Alaska, or that they planned to so in the future.

While that dismissal was without leave to amend the complaint, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to federal court in Honolulu to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to fix the shortcomings in their original filing.

Smith dismissed the claim for divesture with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs can’t try to salvage this claim, because, he said, they had abandoned it by not responding in their briefings to Alaska’s arguments that their complaint didn’t provide a basis for obtaining divestiture.

As for their antitrust claims, the judge invited the plaintiffs to file a letter explaining how they could remedy these before he will decide whether they can file a second amended complaint.

He noted that the plaintiffs had already indicated in a separate proceeding before a magistrate judge that they might not be able to fare better in articulating their claims without first obtaining discovery from Alaska. The magistrate judge, however, denied their bid to demand to documentation from the airline before they had survived Alaska’s motion to dismiss.

“So the fact that plaintiffs appear not to believe they can adequately address deficiencies in their complaint without discovery weighs against, not in favor of, granting leave to amend,” Smith said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs didn’t respond to a request for comment on the ruling.