United Airlines vs. Untied.com continues
Latest news: As if it wasn't already obvious, Cooperstock demonstrates that contacting an airline's senior lawyers is the right way to escalate a legal demand.

Untied.com has been a thorn in the side of United Airlines since 1997, exposing United's mistreatment of its passengers and employees alike. As a result, United is trying to shut down this website through legal action. If you support freedom of speech and the right to criticize a multi-billion dollar corporation, please help keep it alive by donating to my legal defense fund.

Note: PayPal requires that the donation amount is entered first, before country is selected; otherwise, it assumes you're in Canada.

As readers familiar with this website are well aware, United Airlines and its senior lawyers brought two parallel proceedings against me on November 19, 2012, in their effort to shut down this website.

At the last minute before trial in Quebec Superior Court, United offered to drop its SLAPP suit if I'd agree to remove the work contact information for some of its senior employees and henceforth, only provide passengers with a legal contact of United's own choosing. I refused, for reasons explained to the court in detail.

At trial, April 15-20, 2016, United maintained that:

  • One of its senior employees, whose own LinkedIn profile identifies him as "Managing Director, Customer Solutions" at United Airlines, has nothing to do with customer relations
  • United's senior legal counsel have nothing to do with passengers' legal claims, despite evidence to the contrary, as well as the ironic example of Brett Hart, United's General Counsel, who was responsible for Customer Care, and
  • the mere fact that these lawyers receive, on average, one email per day and one voice mail per week from passengers or attorneys, constitutes "a flood of harassment" that necessitated United's lawsuit against Cooperstock

As remedy, United was seeking an injunction that would order me "to refrain from ever posting the names and contact information of any of Airline Plaintiffs' employees on any website". On the last day of trial, United substantially altered the terms of its requested injunction. This seemed to me as highly questionable, since my limited understanding of legal procedure was that a party's pleadings serve as the roadmap they intend to follow at trial. Regardless, judgment was granted in United's favour. A motion for provisional stay of the injunction pending appeal will be heard on January 16, 2017.

Next up is the trial in Federal Court, scheduled for December 5-8, 2016, related to alleged copyright and trademark infringement.

Regardless of the outcome, I intend to keep Untied.com as a voice of criticism against United, documenting the airline's abuse of its passengers and employees, and provide you with a resource for fighting for your rights.

Many thanks for your support.

Jeremy Cooperstock,
Maintainer, Untied.com

Questions and Answers
Why do you operate and maintain Untied.com?
Why are the airlines' cases meritless?
What is a SLAPP suit?
Why is this a SLAPP suit?
Why does Cooperstock not comply with the airlines' demands?
Are United's employees upset with Cooperstock?
What does Untied.com do with the complaints received?
What impact has Untied.com had?
Did Cooperstock offer to work for United Airlines as a paid consultant?
Does the confusion of Untied.com with United's own web site hurt their business?
What should United do differently to become the best airline possible?
  • Jul. 16, 2012: United expresses "concerns" regarding Untied.com.
  • Jul. 16, 2012: United requests removal of work contact information for senior employees and change of site logo.
  • Aug.-Oct., 2012: Cooperstock adds prominent disclaimers and a pop-up dialog to the site, making clear that his site is not affiliated with the airline, and discouraging readers from misuse of the work contact information for senior airline employees.
  • Nov. 19, 2012: United and Continental sue Cooperstock in the Federal Court of Canada and the Superior Court of Quebec.
  • Feb. 15, 2013: Quebec Superior Court rules on Cooperstock's motion to dismiss.
  • Sep. 27, 2013: Quebec Court of Appeal returns file to Superior Court for a new hearing on motion to dismiss.
  • Jun. 3, 2014: Quebec Superior Court rules on Cooperstock's motion to dismiss.
  • Sep. 27, 2016: Quebec Superior Court grants United's injunction; appeal pending.
Related Links
Media Coverage