Court revives lawsuit over AI pricing at New Jersey casinos

The Third Circuit revived a proposed antitrust class action accusing Atlantic City casinos of using Cendyn’s Rainmaker software to push room rates higher in tandem. In Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, case 24-3006, the appeals court reopened claims brought by Karen Cornish-Adebiyi, Luis Santiago and Monica Blair-Smith against Caesars Entertainment, Boardwalk Regency LLC, Harrah’s Atlantic City Operating Company LLC, Tropicana Atlantic City Corporation, MGM Resorts International and Marina District Development Company LLC.

The suit centers on whether algorithmic room pricing crossed the line from revenue management into coordination. Plaintiffs say the software at issue, Cendyn’s Rainmaker program, helped shape prices at casino hotels in Atlantic City, New Jersey, a market where room rates can swing sharply around holidays, major events and tourist spikes. Earlier district court filings also named Jacob Fabel as a plaintiff.

The case had been dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 30, 2024, by U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The revival puts the dispute back into active litigation after a ruling that had briefly ended the latest class action over casino room rates. The Third Circuit’s decision gives plaintiffs another chance to press the argument that software used by competitors can help produce coordinated pricing even without an explicit agreement in a back room.

The timing gives the case national weight. In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice said pricing algorithms can support price-fixing claims, reinforcing the view that automated pricing does not sit outside antitrust law just because a computer generates the numbers. That position matters well beyond Atlantic City, where hotels, airlines, ride-hailing platforms, online retailers and entertainment venues increasingly rely on tools that update prices based on demand, competitors and consumer behavior.

Advocates have treated the Atlantic City dispute as part of a broader fight over algorithmic price coordination. The American Antitrust Institute urged the Third Circuit to overturn the dismissal, while the Economic Liberties Project called the case a warning about market-rigging technology. The legal question now is whether software marketed as a revenue optimizer can be treated as the mechanism that lets rivals move together without a formal handshake, a question that could shape antitrust enforcement in concentrated markets for years.