# Douglas v. EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc.

> District Court, D. Massachusetts · September 22, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10199777

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Massachusetts
- **Decided:** September 22, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10199777

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that under the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1374, “travel agents, tour operators, and nominal ‘social clubs’ which in fact publicly sell tours and air transportation are ‘indirect air carriers’”
- noting that plaintiff must prove regulatory violation plus injury caused by the unfair or deceptive act
- stating that “[t]ravel agents, tour operations, shipping and charterers and the like are ‘indirect air carriers' covered by the [Airline Deregulation Act]”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
)
MELISSA DOUGLAS, THOMAS AIKINS, )
AND SARA KAHL, on behalf of themselves )
and all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) Case No. 20-cv-11740-DJC
)
EF EDUCATION FIRST INTERNATIONAL, )
LTD., EF INSTITUTE FOR CULTURAL )
EXCHANGE, INC., AND EF EXPLORE )
AMERICA, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, J. September 22, 2021

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Melissa Douglas (“Douglas”), Thomas Aikins (“Aikins”) and Sarah Kahl
(“Kahl”), on behalf of themselves and a purported class (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed this
lawsuit against Defendants EF Education First International, Ltd. (“EF International”), EF Institute
for Cultural Exchange, Inc. (“EF ICE”), and EF Explore America Inc. (“EF Explore”)
(collectively, “Defendants” or “EF Entities”) alleging violations of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A. D. 60.
Plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction against EF Tours and an order requiring EF Tours
to offer each class member the options required under 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 and a full or partial
refund pursuant to 940 C.M.R. §§ 15.06(1) and (3). Id. at 16-17. Defendants have moved to
dismiss. D. 75. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion.
II. Standard of Review
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must determine if the facts alleged “plausibly narrate a claim
for relief.” Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted). Reading the complaint “as a whole,” the Court must conduct a two-step, context-specific

inquiry. García-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013). First, the Court must
perform a close reading of the claim to distinguish the factual allegations from the conclusory legal
allegations contained therein. Id. Factual allegations must be accepted as true, while conclusory
legal conclusions are not entitled credit. Id. Second, the Court must determine whether the factual
allegations present a “reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct alleged.”
Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In sum, the complaint
must provide sufficient factual allegations for the Court to find the claim “plausible on its face.”
García-Catalán, 734 F.3d at 103 (citation omitted). If the complaint, based on the well-pleaded
factual allegations, fails to allege “content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable” based on a legally viable claim, it is subject to dismissal. Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
III. Factual Background

The following summary is based upon the allegations in the second amended complaint,
D. 60, and are accepted as true for the purposes of the resolving the motion to dismiss. EF
Education First is a global education company that provides language, academic, cultural exchange
and educational travel programs. D. 60 ¶ 10. It consists of three affiliated entities—EF
International, EF ICE and EF Explore America. Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 10. EF International is a Swiss
corporation that operates tours abroad. Id. ¶ 7. EF Explore America and EF ICE are both based
in the United States, id. ¶¶ 8-9, and market and sell travel services and tours on behalf of EF
Education First. Id. ¶ 11. According to EF ICE’s Booking Conditions, EF International operates
the EF ICE tours, while EF ICE acts as a marketing service provider for EF International. Id. ¶ 16.
A. The Douglas Family

In October 2018, Douglas’s daughter, Brinley Douglas (“Brinley”), attended a meeting in
Henderson, Nevada, conducted by one of Brinley’s high school French teachers. Id. ¶ 34. Brinley
later decided to book one of the EF ICE tours, scheduled from April 4 to April 12, 2020, of Venice,
the Alps and Paris. Id. ¶ 36. Douglas enrolled Brinley in the designated tour by paying a $95 non-
refundable deposit via EF Tour’s website and subsequently paid EF Tours the balance of the tour’s
full cost of $3,846 via the tour’s payment plan. Id. On March 3, 2020, EF Tours cancelled
Brinley’s trip via a group email. Id. ¶ 37. The email stated that the tour would be rescheduled
until spring 2021, which would be after Brinley’s high school graduation. Id. Douglas spoke with
EF ICE customer service on March 4, 2020 and was told she could pursue one of three options:
(1) cancel Brinley’s tour and receive a refund of $1,806 of the $3,846 she had paid; (2) accept a
travel voucher for the cost of the tour (less the non-refundable deposit) to be used on another trip;

or (3) sell the voucher to another student participating in the postponed 2021 tour. Id. ¶ 38. On
March 5, Douglas wrote to EF ICE requesting a full refund. Id. ¶ 39. On March 10, 2020, EF
refused Douglas’s request and instead offered her a voucher for future travel, less the non-
refundable deposit. Id. On March 17, 2020, EF ICE adjusted the offer, proposing a refund less
$1,000. Id. On June 4, 2020, after Douglas had engaged counsel, EF ICE sent Douglas a partial
refund—the amount she paid, less $565.1 Id.

1 On May 20, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued an Assurance of Discontinuance agreement (“AOD”)
with EF Institute and EF America, in which EF Entities were released from any claims the Attorney General could
have asserted against them. Id. ¶ 33. The AOD did not pursue claims under 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 because all
Massachusetts residents would be offered cash refunds, less $565 for international travel and $450 for domestic U.S.
travel tours. D. 76-3 ¶¶ 12-13.
B. The Aikins Family

In September 2019, Pappasorn Aikins (“Pappasorn”) heard about the opportunity to take
an educational tour of Italy offered through EF ICE, id. ¶ 40, and booked a tour scheduled for April
18, 2020, id. ¶ 42. Her father, Aikins, enrolled her in the tour by paying the $95 non-refundable
deposit via EF ICE’s website. Id. Pappasorn made monthly payments until the third week of
March when Aikins used his credit card to pay the balance of the tour’s cost. Id. ¶ 44. On or about
February 27, 2020, EF Tours cancelled Pappasorn’s trip. Id. ¶ 45. Three alternative options were
provided post-cancellation: (1) students could take an alternative trip to Greece; (2) they could
postpone their plans until the summer of 2020; or (3) they could accept a travel voucher from EF
Tours in the amount they paid for the Italy trip that could be used for future travel. Id. ¶ 46. Aikins
sought a refund of the purchase price of the tour when he contacted EF ICE soon after a March 4,
2020 meeting with the tour leader. Id. ¶ 48. In response, EF ICE offered vouchers for alternative
trips. Id. As conditions worsened internationally due to the COVID-19 pandemic, EF ICE solely
offered students vouchers. Id. ¶ 48.

EF ICE later offered Aikins and Pappasorn three options: (1) “cancel” the tour and receive
a refund of the amount paid, less $1,000; (2) accept a travel voucher for the cost of the tour (less
the non-refundable deposit) to be used on another trip; or (3) accept the travel voucher and try to
sell it to another student participating in a tour. Id. ¶ 49. Aikins contacted the Maine Attorney
General’s consumer protection division to file a formal complaint against EF ICE, which remains
pending. Id. ¶ 50. Over the next few weeks, EF ICE modified its offer, eventually agreeing to
refund all but $565 of the money paid for the trip. Id. ¶ 51.
C. The Kahl Family

On April 25, 2019, Kahl and her two children, Madeline and Zackery, attended a virtual
meeting hosted by Jodi Goodman (“Goodman”), a Group Leader for EF Tours and teacher at
Madeline and Zachary’s school. Id. ¶ 52. Goodman gave a presentation on an EF Tours’ trip to
Washington, D.C. and New York, scheduled for spring 2020. Id. ¶ 52. Shortly after the meeting,
Kahl registered her children for the trip and paid EF Tours for both trips, in full, on or about April
25, 2019. Id. ¶ 54. On March 1, 2020, Kahl contacted EF Explore America to ask about the status
of the trip and potential cancellation given COVID-19 developments. Id. ¶ 56. The company
responded that it was monitoring the situation, but that domestic tours had not been changed. Id.
On March 10, 2020, Goodman sent an email to families, including a message from an EF Explore
America Tour Consultant, explaining next steps if the tour was cancelled. Id. ¶ 57. On March 12,
2020, Kahl and other families received an email notifying them that the trip had been formally
cancelled, id. ¶ 58, and the next day, Kahl received an email from EF Explore America, explaining
that the trip would be “postponed.” Id.

On March 17, 2020, Kahl received another email from EF Explore America, offering a
travel voucher for the amount paid to be used towards a different trip or exchanged for a refund of
the amount paid, less $750. Id. ¶ 59. The email stated that the retained $750 would partially cover
costs related to non-recoverable payments to suppliers, staff and “the investment we have always
made and continue to make in itinerary, date and destination flexibility.” Id. ¶ 59. On March 19,
Kahl received an email from Goodman, advising Kahl to reschedule the DC/NY trip to September
2020, id. ¶ 60, and on March 22, Kahl contacted EF Explore America requesting a full refund and
an itemized list of costs EF Explore America had incurred to justify withholding $750, id. ¶ 61. In
response, on March 25, 2020, EF Explore America denied Kahl’s request for a full refund and did
not provide the itemized list. Id. On June 5, 2020, EF Explore America issued refunds to the
Kahls, once they retained counsel, in the amount of $1,828 for each trip, less $450 each. Id. ¶ 62.
IV. Procedural History

The original lead plaintiff instituted this action in the District Court for the Southern
District of California. See D. 1. In September 2020, the case was transferred to this Court. D. 40;
D. 41. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on December 7, 2020. D. 60. Defendants
now have moved to dismiss. D. 75. The Court heard the parties on the pending motion and took
the matter under advisement. D. 88.
V. Discussion

A. The Airline Deregulation Act

Plaintiffs allege that EF Entities violated Chapter 93A, which prohibits “[u]nfair methods
of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Mass Gen L. c. 93A § 2; D. 60 ¶ 78. Plaintiffs claim EF Entities violated 940 C.M.R. § 15.06,
which they argue constitutes a per se violation of Chapter 93A, and that their actions were “unfair
and deceptive,” thereby violating the statute. Id. ¶ 78. As an initial matter, EF Entities argues that
Plaintiffs’ Chapter 93A claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713,
et seq. (the “Deregulation Act”). D. 76 at 15-16.
1. Preemption

The Deregulation Act states that no state or political subdivision thereof may “enact or
enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price,
route, or service of an air carrier that may provide air transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1).
The Deregulation Act was enacted “to ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation
with regulation of their own.” Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374, 378 (1992). Under the
Deregulation Act, an “air carrier” is defined as “a citizen of the United States undertaking by any
means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2).
EF Entities claim that they are “indirect air carriers” because they are sellers of travel
services, which include air travel, D. 76 at 16, and their Booking Conditions cover air travel, id.

Plaintiffs argue that EF International is not an air carrier, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2),
because it is not a “citizen of the United States,” but rather, is a Swiss citizen, D. 80 at 14. A
foreign air carrier may also be entitled to preemption, but must be a “a person, not a citizen of the
United States, undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide foreign air
transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(21). “Foreign air transportation” is the “transportation of
passengers . . . between a place in the United States and a place outside the United States.” 49
U.S.C. § 40102(a)(23). EF International solely operates tours abroad. D. 76 at 2; D. 77-1 at 2.
Accordingly, EF International does not qualify as a “foreign air carrier” under 49 U.S.C.
§ 40102(a)(21). EF ICE and EF Explore America, however, are United States citizens. D. 60
¶¶ 8-9. EF ICE and EF Explore America are affiliates and subsidiaries of EF Education First and

both market and sell travel services on behalf of EF Education First. Id. ¶ 11; see ABC Charters,
Inc. v. Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1299 (S.D. Fl. 2008) (stating that “[t]ravel agents, tour
operations, shipping and charterers and the like are ‘indirect air carriers' covered by the [Airline
Deregulation Act]”). As EF ICE and EF Explore America market and sell travel services, booking
air transportation as part of its tour packages, they qualify under the ADA’s definition of indirect
air carriers. See Hebert v. Vantage Travel Serv., Inc., 444 F. Supp. 3d 233, 249 (D. Mass. 2020)
(concluding defendant, “as a tour operator that booked air transportation as part of its tour
packages” qualified as an indirect air carrier under the Airline Deregulation Act); Arkin v. Trans
Int’l Airlines, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 11, 13 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (noting that under the Federal Aviation
Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1374, “travel agents, tour operators, and nominal ‘social clubs’ which in fact
publicly sell tours and air transportation are ‘indirect air carriers’”).
Turning to whether the claims brought pursuant to Chapter 93A “relate[ ] to a price, route,
or service of an air carrier,” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1), the Court notes that the Supreme Court

referenced the “sweeping nature” of the Deregulation Act’s preemption provision, emphasizing
the reach of the provision’s “relationship” language, Morales, 504 U.S. at 384, and held that the
provision should be construed broadly, id. at 384-85. See Am. Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219,
226 (1995) (holding that claims brought under Illinois’s Consumer Fraud Act that challenged an
airline’s “charges in the form of mileage credits for free tickets and upgrades” and “access to
flights and class-of-service upgrades unlimited by retrospectively applied capacity controls and
blackout dates” were sufficiently related to the rates and services of the airline to be preempted by
the Deregulation Act); see McLaughlin v. TWA Getaway Vacations, 979 F. Supp. 174, 175
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (analyzing preemption pursuant to the Deregulation Act and stating that “[t]he
Supreme Court has broadly interpreted the provisions of the [Deregulation Act] to preempt all

actions that are (a) asserted against air carriers and (b) have a connection with or reference to
airline rates, routes, or services”) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[U]nder Morales, the ADA
preempts both laws that explicitly refer to an airline’s prices and those that have a significant effect
upon prices.” Buck v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 476 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing United Parcel
Serv., Inc. v. Flores–Galarza, 318 F.3d 323, 335 (1st Cir. 2003)). A state law claim may be
preempted if it involves the enactment or enforcement of a state law that “has a connection with
or relation to airline prices, routes or services even indirectly.” ABC Charters, Inc., 591 F. Supp.
2d at 1299. “A sufficient nexus exists if the law expressly references the air carrier’s prices, routes
or services, or has a ‘forbidden significant effect’ upon the same.” United Parcel Serv., Inc., 318
F.3d at 335 (quoting Morales, 504 U.S. at 388).
According to EF Entities’ Booking Conditions, EF Entities’ program price includes
“[r]ound-trip airfare,” as well as “[a]irport transfers and transportation between destination cities.”

D. 77-1 at 2. EF Entities argue that “[p]rice is explicitly incorporated” into the relevant definitions
and options provided in 940 C.M.R. § 15.06, upon which Plaintiffs’ claims rely, D. 76 at 17, and
further that the travel refunds at issue here inherently implicate price for preemption purposes, id.
Preemption requires, however, that the regulation has a “direct connection to air carrier prices.”
DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81, 87-88 (1st Cir. 2011). Section 15.06 does not expressly
reference air carrier prices, routes or services, referring to the value of purchased “travel service[s]”
more broadly, 940 C.M.R. § 15.06; see, e.g., Chapman v. Priceline Grp., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-
1519(RNC), 2017 WL 4366716, at *2 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2017) (noting that while “[b]roadly
speaking, plaintiff’s state law claims do involve prices at which [ ] [a]irlines tickets are sold . . . this
does not, by itself, support ADA preemption” as defendants “must show that enforcing the state

laws on which plaintiff relies would have a significant effect on the ‘price, route or service of an
air carrier’”).
In DiFiore, 646 F.3d at 88, the First Circuit concluded that the state tips law at issue
“directly regulate[d] how an airline service is performed and how its price is displayed to
customers,” and therefore had “a direct connection to air carrier prices and services and [could]
fairly be said to regulate both.” Id. The court emphasized that the law did “more than simply
regulate the employment relationship between the skycaps and the airline,” but rather, had “the
same potential impact on [the airline’s] practices as a guideline condemning the same conduct
explicitly.” Id. The airline would need to consider such modifications as “[m]odifying the
[defendants’] website to mention tips,” “[p]ermitting credit-card payments,” “[i]nstalling a cash
register at the curbside,” and “[r]e-bundling the cost of curbside check-in into ticket prices,” to
comply with the state law. Id. The court concluded that such suggestions “could easily affect
price and not just the provision of the [airline’s] service.” Id. at 89. Similarly, in United Parcel

Serv., Inc. v. Flores–Galarza, 318 F.3d at 336, the First Circuit concluded that the challenged
scheme had a “significant effect” on UPS’s prices, routes or services where it forbade delivery
unless a recipient produced a certificate, which “significantly affect[ed] the timeliness and
effectiveness of UPS’s service” and “create[d] a substantial burden on UPS, in the form of
additional labor, costs, and delays.” Id. The court emphasized that the burden “directly and
significantly affect[ed] UPS’s routes and services, which depend upon an orderly flow of
packages.” Id.
Here, Plaintiffs’ claim, which pertains to EF Entities’ failure to offer Plaintiffs the required
refund options when their tours were cancelled, unlike DiFiore or United Parcel Serv., Inc., has no
clear tie or relation to the price, route or service of an air carrier nor does it have an apparent impact

thereon. EF Entities has failed to allege any comparable or otherwise significant impact on its
prices, routes or services stemming from the enforcement of 940 C.M.R. § 15.06. It is unclear
how providing the refund options required by 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 would alter EF Entities’ price,
route or service, particularly where refunds are already provided in some form by the company,
D. 76 at 6.
The cases cited by EF Entities do not compel a different outcome. In Buck, 476 F.3d at
29, plaintiffs purchased nonrefundable, unused airline tickets from American Airlines and sought
to recover various fees and taxes that had been collected as part of the original ticket price. Buck,
476 F.3d at 35. In ABC Charters, Inc., 318 F.3d at 336, the offending state law submitted
companies providing lawful travel related services to Cuba to, among other things, “extraordinary
expensive registration and bonding requirements [and] exorbitant fines.” Id. The court in ABC
Charters, Inc. concluded that the law “‘related to’ (and [would] certainly affect) the routes, prices
or services Plaintiffs provide” as “[f]ewer services at a higher rate [would] be the inevitable (and

intended) result of the [law] as the number of travel agencies shrink, because they cannot afford to
post a $100,00.00 to $250,000.00 bond, or as their increased costs are passed on to their
customers.” Id. at 1301. Both cases clearly “relate to” the price or service provided by a direct or
indirect air carrier, and neither involve a claim, as in the present case, unrelated to price, route or
service, nonetheless being preempted by the courts because air transportation was an element of
the travel package at issue. The plaintiffs in ABC Charters, Inc. were travel agents, who sold
airline tickets, and aircraft charterers, who filed suit due to the state law’s direct effect on air
transportation prices, id., and the plaintiffs in Buck filed suit seeking “refunds of government fees
associated with air travel,” Buck, 476 F.3d at 36. Such cases are dissimilar from the claim at hand,
in which Plaintiffs purchased tour packages, that in some cases included airline travel, and filed

suit to obtain a refund or other alternative, pursuant to 940 C.M.R. § 15.06, when those tours did
not occur. D. 60 ¶¶ 78-79; DiFiore, 646 F.3d at 88 (noting that “federal preemption does not reach
state laws that have only a ‘tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ impact” on air carrier prices, routes or
services (quoting Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364, 371 (2008)).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Deregulation Act does not preempt Chapter 93A as it
relates to the claim brought by Plaintiffs here.
2. Plausible Allegations for Plaintiffs' Chapter 93A Claim

“Chapter 93A . . . is a broad consumer protection statute that provides a private cause of
action for a consumer who ‘has been injured,’ by ‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce.’” Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2017)
(quoting Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A §§ 9(1), 2(a)) (internal citations omitted). Although Chapter 93A
“does not define what acts and practices are unfair or deceptive, § 2(c) of [Chapter] 93A
specifically authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate regulations making these

determinations.” Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 73, 76 (2009), aff’d,
460 Mass. 500 (2011); see McDermott v. Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C., 775 F.3d 109,
116 (1st Cir. 2014).
Plaintiffs allege that, after EF Entities cancelled the scheduled trips, they failed to offer
Plaintiffs their choice of alternatives enumerated under 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 and instead referred
Plaintiffs to contract provisions that stated customers would receive a future travel voucher, less
non-refundable fees. D. 60 ¶ 64. Where, as here, regulations set out that an act or practice is per
se unfair or deceptive, see 940 C.M.R. § 15.01(1) (recognizing that a “[v]iolation of any provision
of 940 C.M.R. § 15.00 shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice”), a plaintiff still must satisfy
other elements of the Chapter 93A claim (e.g., causation and injury), see Tyler v. Michaels Stores,

Inc., 464 Mass. 492, 503 (2013) (concluding that “violation of the legal right that has created the
unfair or deceptive act or practice must cause the consumer some kind of separate, identifiable
harm arising from the violation itself”); Ferreira v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 130 F. Supp. 3d 471,
478 (D. Mass. 2015) (noting that plaintiff must prove regulatory violation plus injury caused by
the unfair or deceptive act); Barron v. NCMIC Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-11969-ADB, 2018 WL
2089357, at *5 (D. Mass. May 4, 2018) (explaining that “[v]iolations of state regulations that
constitute per se unfair or deceptive practices under Chapter 93A do not, without more, establish
injury under Chapter 93A”). As to the first element of the c. 93A claim, however, when regulations
establish per se unfair or deceptive acts or practices, plaintiffs need not make an additional showing
of unfairness or deceptiveness aside from evidence of the violation itself. See Cranmore v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 410 F. Supp. 3d 336, 341–42 (D. Mass. 2019) (concluding that violation of 209
C.M.R. § 18.22(1) “is per se ‘an unfair or deceptive act or practice’ under Chapter 93A” and
rejecting defendants’ argument that a Chapter 93A claim requires more than an allegation that

action violated regulation, which “explicitly defines a violation of [the regulation] as per se ‘an
unfair or deceptive act or practice’ under Chapter 93A”). The SJC has held that “the [A]ttorney
[G]eneral may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of [Chapter 93A],” like 940
C.M.R. § 15.00, that “define[] and outlaw[] certain unfair or deceptive business practices in the
sale of travel services to the public . . . .” Casavant, 460 Mass. at 503–04. Thus, when regulations
define such acts or practices, evidence showing “violations [of the Attorney General’s
Regulations] qualify as unfair or deceptive acts” as a matter of law. Id. at 504 (reversing trial
judge’s conclusion that no Chapter 93A violation occurred when evidence at trial showed
regulatory violation and remanding for determination of damages); see Hebert v. Vantage Travel
Service, Inc., No. 17-cv-10922-DJC, 2021 WL 2516076, at *3 (D. Mass. June 18, 2021)

(discussing and distinguishing Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, Inc., 465 Mass. 165, 174 (2013)
and McDermott, 775 F.3d at 120-22 and concluding that although both barred “per se Chapter 93
liability,” neither addressed “whether regulations could define acts or practices as per se unfair or
deceptive” as 940 C.M.R. §15.06 does).
Here, section 15.06 requires that, where “a seller of travel services is acting as a tour
operator, and the seller fails to provide any of the travel services that a consumer has purchased
directly or indirectly,” the seller must offer the consumer their choice of (1) “cash an amount equal
to the fair market retail value of any undelivered, purchased travel service,” (2) “specially
identified substitution travel service of equal or greater fair market retail value for any undelivered,
purchased travel service” or (3) “specially identified substitute travel service of lower fair market
retail value for any undelivered, purchased travel service, and refund to the consumer in cash an
amount equal to the difference in the fair market retail prices of the purchased and the substitute
travel services.” 940 C.M.R. § 15.06. Under the regulations, “tour operator” is defined as “a seller

of travel services that creates and sells travel packages, either directly to the public or indirectly to
the public.” 940 C.M.R. § 15.02. Thus, the regulation is applicable to EF Entities as the tour
operator of tour packages purchased by Plaintiffs. EF Entities also admit that they are sellers of
travel services and tour operators. See D. 76 at 16.
Accordingly, “[t]he proper inquiry,” is “whether [EF Entities] violated the Attorney
General’s regulations,” which required EF Entities to offer Plaintiffs a full cash refund, a substitute
trip of equivalent value or a substitute trip of lesser value with a cash refund of the difference.
Casavant, 76 Mass. App. Ct. at 77; see 940 C.M.R. § 15.06. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed
to do so. The scope of 940 C.M.R. § 15.06 remains “bound by the strictures of Chapter 93A,
including the requirements of showing unfair and deceptive conduct occurring in trade or

commerce,” McDermott, 775 F.3d at 121, and Plaintiffs must still show that they suffered an injury
as a result to prevail, Ferreira, 130 F. Supp. 3d at 478. At this stage, however, Plaintiffs’ claim
that Defendants failed to offer the choice of a full refund for undelivered travel services is
adequately pled including as to a plausibly alleged first element of their claim, namely an unfair
or deceptive act. See Casavant, 460 Mass. at 504. EF Entities’ argument that the refunds already
offered to Plaintiffs preclude a finding that they engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts,” D. 85 at 6,
ignores the plain language of the Attorney General’s regulations, where violation of any regulation
within the section “shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice.” 940 C.M.R. § 15.01(1).
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to dismiss.
VI. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss, D. 75.
So Ordered.

/s/ Denise J. Casper
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10199777. Public record. Not legal advice.