SAM Magazine—Denver, Aug. 31, 2026—Three separate lawsuits have been filed in Colorado since March that all involve major ski area ownership groups. Two of the complaints were brought by consumers seeking class-action status and involve anti-trust allegations. The third was brought by a Vail Resorts shareholder. None of the three have yet made it into court.

The first complaint filed in March (Goloja, et. al. vs. Vail Resorts, Inc., and Alterra Mountain Company) challenges the mega-pass business model. It argues that Vail Resorts and Alterra Mountain Company have leveraged their market power to unlawfully bundle destination and regional resort access via sales of the Epic Pass and Ikon Pass, respectively, and “Use supracompetitive lift ticket prices to coerce consumers into the mega pass bundles.”

Vail Resorts has stated that the pronounced rise in day-ticket rates in recent years is part of its strategy to drive more consumers to buy the Epic Pass. Alterra lift ticket rates have also risen sharply over the same period, according to the lawsuit, which says ticket prices “act as a punitive outside option, or ‘penalty price,’ for buying the tickets individually …,” effectively forcing consumers to buy season passes. 

The suit also claims the season passes themselves are overpriced. The 2026-27 adult Epic Pass started at $1,089 for access to more than 90 ski areas worldwide. Early pricing for the 2026-27 adult Ikon Pass was $1,349 for access to 76 ski areas around the world. Comparatively, a season pass for Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, Wyo., is more than $4,000, as is a pass for Deer Valley, Utah (owned by Alterra). Independently owned Killington’s (Vt.) adult season pass is currently $1,339.  

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order Vail Resorts and Alterra to change their season pass model and compensate consumers who allegedly overpaid for the companies’ products, among other relief. Vail Resorts filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in June. That is still pending.

Another antitrust lawsuit was filed Aug. 5 by another set of consumers who named Vail Resorts and Alterra, as well as Boyne Resorts, Powdr, the National Ski Areas Association, and RRC Associates as defendants in a complaint that, in part, calls into question the U.S. ski industry’s collaborative culture as resulting in an “anticompetitive scheme.”

The 84-page complaint alleges that the four ownership groups acted in a coordinated fashion, directly or indirectly, to “raise, fix, maintain or stabilize” prices for “destination ski packages,” which consist of products such as season passes, daily lift tickets, lessons, and rentals, and did so using data collected by RRC Associates for two NSAA annual studies, the Kottke End of Season and Guest Experience Report and Economic Analysis of U.S. Ski Areas. These data are collected from participating NSAA member ski areas following the conclusion of each ski season via surveys.

Other examples cited in the lawsuit of information sharing that led to alleged anticompetitive behavior include panel discussions and educational sessions at industry events and competitors using the same e-commerce software. 

The lawsuit claims that the exchange of information makes the “market susceptible to collusion” and suggests the defendants formed a “cartel.” 

Plaintiffs are seeking various monetary relief for members of the class and a permanent injunction essentially preventing the defendants from sharing information, actions, they say, intended to restore competition. 

Finally, on Thursday, Aug. 27, a Vail Resorts shareholder filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against nine members of the company’s board of directors, including CEO Rob Katz—derivatively on behalf of Vail Resorts, meaning the alleged victims in the suit are Vail Resorts itself and its shareholders.

Among the allegations in the suit, Peterson v. Katz et al. cites details from the two consumer lawsuits as examples of how the directors did not uphold their duties by allegedly permitting the misconduct the two consumer lawsuits claim, thus damaging the company’s reputation. Peterson claims those accusations are in conflict with Vail Resorts’ own corporate ethics and conduct policy. 

The plaintiff is seeking “to recover damages on the Company’s behalf” and “to compel disgorgement of the compensation” the directors named in the suit obtained through their alleged misconduct, and to “require Vail to reform its corporate governance and internal controls …”

A Vail Resorts spokesman told Jason Blevins of The Colorado Sun, “We believe that the (Peterson) claims are without merit and will defend the company and our board of directors vigorously.” A similar statement was shared with Blevins regarding the Goloja lawsuit filed in March. NSAA, Alterra, Boyne Resorts, and Powdr either previously declined to comment on pending litigation or didn’t respond to requests for comment.