ASAP Tickets Lawsuit: Travel Care Service and Arbitration Ruling

The ASAP Tickets lawsuit is a proposed class action accusing the online travel agency’s parent company, International Travel Network, LLC (ITN), of systematically denying trip-protection refunds it had promised in writing, and of selling that protection product as if it were not insurance when it arguably was. The case, Maggi v. International Travel Network, LLC, was filed in January 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In June 2026, the court sent the plaintiff’s claims to individual arbitration, ending the class case before the underlying allegations were ever decided.¹

What the Suit Accuses ASAP Tickets Of

Sandra Maggi, a New York resident, filed the complaint on January 4, 2024 on behalf of herself and a proposed class of consumers who purchased ITN’s “Travel Care Service” and were denied refunds for covered cancellations.² The suit alleges two connected wrongs: refusing to pay companion refunds the contract promises, and marketing an insurance-like product without an active insurance license.

The Travel Care Service at the Heart of the Case

ITN sells “Travel Care Service” alongside airline tickets as trip protection. The written agreement promises a 100% refund on fully unused tickets if a traveler is hospitalized at the time of departure and a 50% refund if a traveler cannot fly because of illness. The agreement also extends those benefits to travel “companions” who purchased a ticket and the Travel Care Service through ITN.³

According to the complaint, ITN routinely pays the sick passenger’s refund but refuses to pay the companion’s, despite the contract language covering both. The lawsuit calls this a systematic breach of ITN’s own agreement.

The complaint also alleges ITN charges roughly 9% to 10% of a trip’s total cost for the Travel Care Service, compared with a 5% to 6% industry average for standard travel insurance.²

The Named Plaintiff’s Experience

Maggi says she bought two airline tickets at $978 each in December 2022, plus $178.90 in Travel Care Service coverage for herself and her husband. When her husband needed heart surgery and could not travel, ITN granted a 50% refund on his ticket but refused to refund anything on hers. The company told her the service applies “only to the sick passenger,” which she says directly contradicts the companion coverage language in the agreement she was sold.²

The Unlicensed Insurance Allegation

ITN tells customers the Travel Care Service “is not an insurance policy” but a company service to help customers obtain airline refunds. The complaint argues that framing is false, and that the product meets the legal definition of insurance under New York law because it obligates ITN to pay money based on a fortuitous event like illness or hospitalization.³

The distinction has real consequences. If the product is insurance, ITN would need a license to sell it and would be subject to disclosure rules and consumer protections that come with regulated insurance products. The complaint alleges ITN held no active insurance license in New York during the relevant period. The company applied for and received a license in August 2023, but it remained inactive as of the lawsuit’s filing because ITN had not yet associated with a licensed insurance producer.³

The Counts Filed

The complaint brings claims for breach of contract for the unpaid companion refunds; unjust enrichment for collecting premiums on coverage ITN never intended to honor; deceptive practices under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 for misleading consumers about companion eligibility; and deceptive practices and false advertising under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350 for misrepresenting the Travel Care Service as something other than insurance. It seeks damages and equitable relief for a proposed class of 100 or more members, with an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million.³

Why the Case Was Sent to Arbitration

The lawsuit never reached the question of whether ITN actually breached the Travel Care Service agreement. ITN moved to force the dispute into arbitration under a clause in its general website terms and conditions. That clause requires binding arbitration for any dispute, waives class actions, and states in capital letters: “YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT.”⁴

A wrinkle nearly saved the case. Maggi had not personally completed the online purchase; she asked a friend, Kathy Martin, to book the tickets and protection plan. Martin clicked “I agree” on ITN’s terms during checkout. Judge Stephanos Bibas found Martin had both actual and apparent authority to act as Maggi’s agent, so the clicks bound Maggi to the arbitration clause.⁴

On June 11, 2026, Judge Bibas granted ITN’s motion to compel individual arbitration.¹ The court rejected Maggi’s arguments that the clause was unconscionable, noting the agreement required affirmative assent, that ignorance of the terms was not a defense, and that a 30-day opt-out period foreclosed procedural unconscionability claims. The court also found the clause substantively balanced because it applied to both sides and allowed consumers to bring individual claims in small-claims court.⁴

What the Ruling Means for Other Customers

The class action has been effectively dismantled. No class was certified, and the questions at the core of the case — whether ITN breaches its companion refund promises and whether the Travel Care Service is unlicensed insurance — were not decided by the court. Judge Bibas held those merits disputes are for an arbitrator, not a federal judge, to resolve.¹

For anyone else denied a Travel Care Service refund, the practical takeaway is that a group lawsuit against ITN over these practices is not currently available. The same arbitration clause and class waiver that ended Maggi’s case would apply to other customers who bought through ITN’s website, meaning any dispute would go to individual arbitration or small-claims court. Whether Maggi appeals the arbitration ruling remains open; unless she does, the underlying allegations will be resolved, if at all, in a private proceeding.

1
Justia. Maggi v. International Travel Network, LLC, No. 1:2024cv00009
2
ClassAction.org. Company Behind ASAP Tickets Refuses to Refund Travel Companions With Trip Protection Coverage, Class Action Claims
3
ClassAction.org. Maggi v. International Travel Network, LLC, Complaint
4
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Maggi v. International Travel Network, LLC, Memorandum Opinion