Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Priceline’s “Name Your Own Price” hotel booking service did not create an agency relationship with users. Thus, Priceline had no fiduciary duty to disclose that its payment to hotels was less than the user’s bid, retaining the difference as profit.
Legal Significance: Clarifies that an agency relationship, imposing fiduciary duties, requires the principal’s right to control the agent’s actions, a factor absent in typical online fixed-price bidding services where users cede procurement control after initial input.
Johnson v. Priceline.com, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Lee Johnson and Joey Marie Kelly used Priceline.com’s “Name Your Own Price” service, where consumers bid for hotel rooms by specifying date, geographic area, minimum star quality, and the price they are willing to pay. If Priceline accepted a bid, it booked a reservation, often paying the hotel less than the customer’s bid and retaining the difference as profit, in addition to a disclosed service fee. Plaintiffs alleged this practice, without explicit disclosure of the profit margin on the room itself, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, arguing Priceline acted as their agent. They contended Priceline’s advertising and post-transaction confirmations implied an agency relationship. Priceline’s model involved customers setting initial parameters, but Priceline then independently searched its inventory and decided whether to accept the bid and fulfill the reservation, without further customer input or control over the price Priceline paid to the hotel vendor. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding no fiduciary relationship.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did Priceline.com, through its “Name Your Own Price” service, enter into an agency relationship with its customers that imposed a fiduciary duty to disclose the profit it made on their hotel bookings?
No, Priceline.com did not enter into an agency relationship with users of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did Priceline.com, through its “Name Your Own Price” service, enter into an agency relationship with its customers that imposed a fiduciary duty to disclose the profit it made on their hotel bookings?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that for an agency relationship to exist, particularly in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
Legal Rule
Under Connecticut law, which adopts the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt moll
Legal Analysis
The court, applying Connecticut agency law, focused on the third element of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia dese
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Priceline’s “Name Your Own Price” service does not create a fiduciary