Travel lawsuits active in mid-2026 cover a wide stretch of the industry: a class action against a passport expediting company, a privacy case accusing JetBlue of using browsing data to price tickets, two stayed travel insurance settlements worth more than $40 million combined, airline refund disputes playing out alongside a new federal refund rule, and a cluster of challenges to the Trump administration’s visa restrictions on 75 countries and travel ban on 39. Here is where each case stands and what it means for travelers.
RushMyPassport Class Action Over Expediting Fees
A federal class action filed April 20, 2026, accuses Expedited Travel LLC, the company behind RushMyPassport, of charging consumers steep premiums for passport processing that is no faster than what the U.S. Department of State offers directly. The case, Alfonzetti v. Expedited Travel, LLC (No. 1:26-cv-03216), is pending in the Southern District of New York and alleges violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, covering deceptive practices and false advertising.1Top Class Actions. RushMyPassport Accused of Falsely Promising Faster Passport Processing in Class Action
Plaintiff Tyler Alfonzetti claims RushMyPassport markets itself as a “fast, convenient way” to get a passport on a tight timeline but delivers no actual reduction in processing time. The State Department’s own expedited service costs $60 on top of the $130 baseline fee, and the fastest government shipping option runs about $212 total. RushMyPassport charges premiums ranging from $119 to $740 on top of standard government fees.2ClassAction.org. Expedited RushMyPassport Services No Faster Than Applications Submitted to State Dept., Class Action Lawsuit Says
The complaint points to Trustpilot reviews expressing surprise at the actual speed and notes that RushMyPassport has marketed through partnerships with FedEx, AARP, and AAA. Separately, Expedited Travel Holdings has 137 Better Business Bureau complaints over the past three years as of June 2026, most involving deceptive marketing, failed “concierge” support, and refund difficulties. The company is not BBB-accredited.3BBB. Expedited Travel Holdings, LLC Complaints The suit seeks to represent New York purchasers within the statute of limitations and asks for class certification, damages, and a jury trial.1Top Class Actions. RushMyPassport Accused of Falsely Promising Faster Passport Processing in Class Action
JetBlue Accused of Using Browsing Data to Set Fares
Plaintiff Andrew Phillips sued JetBlue Airways on April 22, 2026, alleging the airline uses tracking technology on its website and app to collect behavioral data without adequate consent, then shares it with third-party analytics firms including FullStory Inc. and PROS Holdings Inc. to adjust ticket prices in real time based on individual browsing and buying behavior. The complaint calls the practice “dynamic surveillance pricing.”4Top Class Actions. JetBlue Class Action Alleges Airline Uses Consumer Data to Set Ticket Prices
Filed as Phillips v. JetBlue Airways Corp. (No. 1:26-cv-02405) in the Eastern District of New York, the case alleges violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and New York’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Unlawful Selling Practices Acts. It remains in early stages.
Travel Insurance Assistance-Fee Settlements Still Frozen on Appeal
Two class action settlements over hidden “assistance fees” on travel insurance received final approval in late 2024, but neither has distributed money because objectors appealed.
Travel Guard: $23.9 Million
In Miller et al. v. Travel Guard Group, Inc. et al. (No. 21-cv-09751-TLT, N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs alleged Travel Guard added a discretionary assistance fee on top of the regulated insurance premium without adequate disclosure. The defendants agreed to pay $23,997,500 without admitting liability.5CaseMine. Miller v. Travel Guard Grp., Order Granting Preliminary Approval
The class covers California and Washington purchasers who bought a qualifying Travel Guard plan between December 17, 2017, and January 18, 2024, where the plan included an assistance fee. Payments are proportional to the fees each claimant paid, based on Travel Guard’s records. The claim deadline passed on August 13, 2024.6TravelFeeSettlement.com. Important Documents7TravelFeeSettlement.com. Travel Fee Settlement8Law360. Miller v. Travel Guard Group Inc. et al.
Allianz Global Assistance: $19.75 Million
A nearly identical theory produced a $19.75 million settlement with AGA Service Company, doing business as Allianz Global Assistance. The consolidated cases are Elgindy et al. v. AGA Service Co. et al. (No. 4:20-cv-06304-JST, N.D. Cal.) and Tasakos v. AGA Service Co. et al. (No. 2:22-cv-00433-RSM, W.D. Wash.). The class covers California and Washington purchasers between September 4, 2016, and September 30, 2023. Final approval came October 29, 2024. This settlement is also stayed pending an objector’s appeal, and the defendants deny wrongdoing.9AssistanceFeeSettlement.com. Assistance Fee Settlement
Airline Refunds: The DOT Rule and the Delta Settlement
A federal rule finalized in April 2024 requires airlines to automatically issue cash refunds for canceled or significantly changed flights within seven business days for credit card purchases and 20 calendar days for other payments. The rule defines a significant change as a shift of more than three hours domestically or six hours internationally, a change in airport, additional connections, or a service-class downgrade. It also requires refunds of checked bag fees when luggage is not delivered within 12 hours of arrival on domestic flights.10U.S. Department of Transportation. Final Rule Requiring Automatic Refunds for Airline Passengers
In December 2025, the DOT issued an enforcement discretion notice pausing one piece of the rule: the treatment of “renumbered” flights as canceled flights. That pause runs through June 30, 2026, after Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and American Airlines argued the definition was too broad.11Federal Register. Airline Refunds and Other Consumer Protections
Pre-rule disputes are still being resolved. In Daniels v. Delta Air Lines Inc. (No. 1:20-cv-01664, N.D. Ga.), passengers alleged Delta breached its contract of carriage by issuing travel credits instead of cash refunds on non-refundable tickets for flights canceled between March 2020 and April 2021. Delta settled for approximately $27 million in total claims, plus 7 percent interest on refunds and about $2.3 million in attorney fees. More than 14,000 customers submitted claims. Delta denied any wrongdoing.12CNN. Delta Covid Flight Cancellation Settlement
Across the border, the Quebec Superior Court authorized a class action against Air Canada on January 13, 2026. Dussault v. Air Canada et al. (No. 500-06-001213-228) alleges the airline denied compensation required by Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations by labeling staffing-shortage disruptions as safety events. The class covers passengers on Air Canada, Air Canada Rouge, and Air Canada Express flights between December 2019 and August 2022 who arrived more than three hours late because of crew shortages.13Slater Vecchio LLP. Air Canada Flights Class Action
Challenges to the 75-Country Visa Freeze and 39-Country Travel Ban
The most consequential travel litigation of 2026 targets two overlapping Trump administration restrictions. One pauses immigrant visas for applicants from 75 countries. The other suspends immigrant and certain nonimmigrant visas for 39 countries. Twenty-three nations appear on both lists, and for those the travel ban controls.14Mandamus Lawyers. 39-Country Travel Ban vs 75-Country Visa Freeze Comparison
The 75-Country Visa Freeze
The State Department announced the pause on January 14, 2026, citing “public charge” concerns under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It took effect January 21, 2026, was not published in the Federal Register, and affects immigrant visas only, not nonimmigrant categories such as tourist, student, or work visas.14Mandamus Lawyers. 39-Country Travel Ban vs 75-Country Visa Freeze Comparison15Washington University OISS. Immigration Updates
In CLINIC v. Rubio (No. 1:26-cv-00858, S.D.N.Y.), filed February 2, 2026, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network and other organizations, along with 11 individual plaintiffs, argue the freeze violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the State Department skipped required rulemaking, violates federal law requiring case-by-case visa adjudication, and amounts to illegal discrimination based on race and national origin. The plaintiffs note all 75 affected countries have predominantly nonwhite populations.16Center for Constitutional Rights. Questions and Answers About 75-Country Visa Ban Lawsuit
Two other suits target the same freeze. Storie v. Trump (No. 1:26-cv-00567, D.D.C.) was the first group lawsuit filed and is pending.17Red Eagle Law. 75 Country Pause Lawsuit A putative class action organized by Red Eagle Law set a June 26, 2026, deadline for affected applicants to join, with the complaint scheduled for filing July 10, 2026. That action brings claims under the Mandamus Act, the APA, and the Fifth Amendment, and excludes anyone already in Storie.
The 39-Country Travel Ban
Presidential Proclamation 10998, signed December 16, 2025, and effective January 1, 2026, suspends both immigrant and certain nonimmigrant visas for nationals of 39 countries, citing deficient security screening and vetting.14Mandamus Lawyers. 39-Country Travel Ban vs 75-Country Visa Freeze Comparison
The ban is being challenged in Chikumba v. Department of State (No. 1:26-cv-00332, D.D.C.), filed February 5, 2026, by 26 intending immigrants from countries including Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Zimbabwe. They argue that while the president can restrict entry under the INA, the proclamation does not authorize the State Department to suspend visa adjudications that immigration statutes require. They allege the blanket freeze is arbitrary and capricious and was implemented without notice-and-comment rulemaking.18EIG Law. Lawsuit Challenges DOS Visa Freeze for 39 Travel Ban Countries
No Fly List Litigation
Challenges to the government’s No Fly List continue on a slower track. The ACLU’s long-running case Kashem v. Barr effectively ended in 2019 when the Ninth Circuit upheld the government’s revised redress procedures as sufficient, though the ACLU maintains the system is “fundamentally unfair.”19ACLU. Kashem et al. v. Barr et al.
A separate case, FBI v. Fikre, produced a Supreme Court ruling in March 2024 holding that a person can keep challenging their No Fly List placement even after the government removes them from it. The Court rejected the government’s mootness argument, finding that without a guarantee against future relisting, the dispute remained live. The ACLU lists the case as ongoing.20ACLU. ACLU Cheers Supreme Court Decision to Allow No Fly List Challenge to Continue