Vail Resorts, Alterra Mountain hit with class action lawsuit over season pass prices

[ski diva]

by: Parker Gordon
Posted: Mar 24, 2026 / 08:31 PM MDT
Updated: Mar 25, 2026 / 10:00 AM MDT


DENVER (KDVR) — A federal antitrust class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of skiers and snowboarders nationwide, and two well-known ski resort operators are listed as the defendants.

The lawsuit was filed against Vail Resorts, Inc. and Alterra Mountain Company, alleging the companies unfairly increased prices and used bundling tactics with their multi-mountain season passes. Vail Resorts’ season pass is called the “Epic Pass,” while Alterra Mountain Company is the “Ikon Pass.”

DiCello Levitt, Berger Montague PC, and Salahi PC, representing the plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado.

According to the lawsuit, Vail Resorts and Alterra Mountain “coerce” skiers and snowboarders into purchasing their “Epic Pass” or “Ikon Pass” by pricing single-day lift tickets at an extremely high rate. As a result, customers believe they are choosing the most cost-effective option, a season pass, even though “both the Lift Ticket and the Mega Pass are over-priced.”

“For years, skiers have been told that soaring lift‑ticket prices, reduced choice, and overcrowding are simply the new reality. Our complaint alleges that these outcomes are not the result of healthy competition, but of exclusionary conduct by two companies that dominate access to the most desirable destinations,” saidGreg Asciolla, Chair of DiCello Levitt’s Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the increase in season passes caused “crowding effects,” which included long lift lines, congested slopes, and customers being “locked” into an entire winter season.

FOX31 reached out to Vail Resorts regarding the lawsuit, and a spokesperson provided the following statement:

“We believe these claims are without merit. We launched the Epic Pass in 2008 to make skiing and riding more accessible, reducing the price of a season pass by 60%. We’re proud that 18 years later, it’s still one of the best values in the industry, especially following our further 20% price reduction in 2021.

“As we acquired smaller resorts over the years, we also launched new, lower-priced pass products, such as the Epic Day Pass Local and Limited, for guests who only want to ski close to home. We will always give the best value to our pass holders who commit ahead of the season—but that said, we have also been intentional to price our lift tickets, sold in season, on a resort-by-resort basis, including numerous new discount opportunities this past season.”

The lawsuit seeks damages for customers who purchased lift tickets or season passes and restore a competitive landscape in the ski resort market.

 

[Beckster]

WOW!!! I’m getting my popcorn ready for this!

 

[liquidfeet]

Well well. I'm so happy to read this. Should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Aerlind]

Hmmmm..this should be interesting. Though I’m not optimistic for a favorable outcome for skiers, we’re just the small fish in the very big financial sea that is Vail/Alterra.

 

[Christy]

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a fan of these passes, but that seems like a weak argument.

The argument that attracted the attention of Washington's attorney general was that VR sold too many passes and then people were unable to use them because there was not sufficient parking or transportation to the mountain (Stevens) here.

 

[ChristinaSkipsBumps]

This will be very interesting to watch. I am a fan of the passes because I like to explore and ski different mountains each year. But they are becoming less affordable but with the high daily lift ticket price, they could charge us just about whatever they want. Ikon reduced their renewal incentive this year from $100 to $50 and increased their price by $20 which makes it $70 more expensive than last year.

 

[Jilly]

And for us in Canada, a bad exchange rate...our incentive is only $30.

 

[marzNC]

Could be other announcements before the snow flies for the 2026-27 season as VR works to achieve a balance between season passes and day tickets.

March 26, 2026

Vail Resorts CEO says it’s time to think beyond the $1,000 ski pass that helped build the empire | Fortune

Rob Katz wants to fix Vail’s broken business model and expand its customer base.

fortune.com

"
The ski season of 2025–26 is winding down—and it was a tough one for Vail Resorts, the world’s largest operator of ski hills. With snowfall 60% below normal for the season through February in its home state of Colorado and low in neighboring Utah, Vail has seen skiers and snowboarders stay away in droves.
. . .

One of Katz’s realizations is that the pass is a business tool in need of rejuvenation. Some skiers may feel that they didn’t get their money’s worth for two seasons in a row. Meanwhile, the rising cost of the already expensive sport is keeping many young people away.

“It’s a matter of making sure that the pass is the best deal,” says Katz. In early March, right before Vail put its 2026–27 passes on sale in a major test of its business, the company announced 20% price cuts for skiers and riders under age 30. Katz says Vail also needs to push lift tickets to reach skiers less interested in the commitment of a full pass. “We need to be more aggressive on lift tickets,” he notes. That has meant, for instance, offering 30% off a lift ticket if reserved a month ahead of time.

. . .

With increasingly variable weather, Katz says he is focusing himself and his teams squarely on what they can control: “In a year like this, we can’t control the weather. We’ve got to constantly be looking to improve and maybe most importantly, when we don’t get it right, we need to admit it.”

And he will, of course, be keeping his fingers crossed for more snow next season."

 

[Bsheresq]

This is an anti-trust lawsuit; they are notoriously tough. (I am a lawyer, although not an antitrust one and it’s been a long time since I took it in law school). The plaintiff will have to show collusion by Alterra and Vail. I’m personally dubious as to whether that exists, but it might, and I am continually astonished by the stupid things people will commit to writing. But I think the resorts will argue that their practices are competitive with each other. Few like what these passes have done to the ski industry, but I don’t think this will change anything. & to argue that people are being “coerced” into buying ski passes is a stretch. The real sin to me is that all these resorts are on public land that the resorts get to treat as personal property. Someone needs to dig up the details of how the resorts got this public land with no regulation whatsoever.

 

[Christy]

The real sin to me is that all these resorts are on public land that the resorts get to treat as personal property. Someone needs to dig up the details of how the resorts got this public land with no regulation whatsoever.

Now that's more my area of expertise. I'm an environmental historian who spent my career working for one of the big public land management agencies and I know quite a lot about the others. Anyway. The short answer is, this is how the Forest Service works (in the West anyway when you are talking about a ski resort on public land it's generally USFS land). Their multi-use mandate means that they lease land and offer special use permits to timber companies, mining companies, ranchers (for grazing), homeowners, hotels, and ski areas, among other things. For ski areas, the terms of their special use permit will tell them what they can and can't do on the land. They have to get permission to do any kind of new construction which is a multi-year or even multi-decade process at least with the national forests here in Washington State. Typically a percentage of their revenue goes back to the USFS.

Whether any particular individual thinks any particular ski resort is getting a sweet deal or a bad one depends on the individual and the resort. I've heard a lot of criticism from skiers over the years of the terms that the USFS puts on ski areas here in Washington, however, if you ask hikers or environmentalists or wildlife advocates, they may have a different view.

 

[marzNC]

Someone needs to dig up the details of how the resorts got this public land with no regulation whatsoever.

It's not true there is no regulation. The U.S. Forest Service must approve all usage by resorts that is on public forest land. The agreements impact not only what can be built, such as ski lifts, but also the timing of the approved usage. The process of getting approval for a new lift or any significant change can take years. Resorts keep a Master Plan on file and update it about every ten years. If a resort decides it's time to actually build a lift in a Master Plan, there is a process for getting approval for an actual construction plan and timeline.

For instance, Alta Lift Co. shuts down the lifts mid-April and the date is set before the ski season starts. It doesn't matter how much snow is left at that time. Neighboring Snowbird can stay open on their private land as long as they deem it's worthwhile. After Alta lifts close, there are people who ride up lifts at Snowbird and ski over to Alta terrain because that reverts to public land that anyone can ski/board as backcountry terrain.

What's not that obvious is that until the law was changed about what the U.S. Forest Service could approve for summer usage, resorts in the Rockies were not allowed to build structures such as alpine slides. The only usage was for hiking or other activities that didn't require any construction. The law changed in 2011 but the new rules for submitting a plan for approval didn't get finished until around 2015. That's a very different scenario compared to New England, New York, the Mid-Atlantic, the midwest, or the southeast where most ski trails are on private land and many ski resorts were 4-season resorts with golf and other warm season revenue generating activities from the start. I don't know the regional ski industry along the Pacific coast and Tahoe to remember the mix of private and public land as a factor for ski resort development.

 

[Christy]

I should have also said, I hope I don't sound like I'm rah rah USFS. There are about a bazillion examples of them catering to industry at the expense of individual users or the environment etc etc. Not related to skiing necessarily, but for example right now under the guise of wildfire prevention and forest health the USFS is opening national forest lands especially here in the PNW to timber companies. Of course timber companies want the big trees not the scraggly ones that need to be thinned, so surprise surprise, people going out into the forest for hikes or what now are finding 80s style logging going on. So a critical eye is always good.

 

[Aerlind]

I should have also said, I hope I don't sound like I'm rah rah USFS. There are about a bazillion examples of them catering to industry at the expense of individual users or the environment etc etc. Not related to skiing necessarily, but for example right now under the guise of wildfire prevention and forest health the USFS is opening national forest lands especially here in the PNW to timber companies. Of course timber companies want the big trees not the scraggly ones that need to be thinned, so surprise surprise, people going out into the forest for hikes or what now are finding 80s style logging going on. So a critical eye is always good.

There's a gas station/gift shop in Dubois, WY, that sells hats and t-shirts that has the USFS logo and says "US Forest Circus, Department of Aggravation". I always thought that fitting based on my personal interactions with them for obtaining permits to manage equine trail competitions.

Interestingly, the resorts even have to get permits for some of their Apres activities. My SO's brother is the marketing director for Vail (at Vail, I don't know if his role expands beyond Vail and Beaver Creek) and has expressed frustration with how complicated the permitting process is to be able to hire the DJs for their springtime Apres parties. He's also said it's annoying to watch resorts like Big Sky "copy" his marketing strategies and then be able to do it better and easier because they're on private land (example being building the Iglu structure, which is still technically a structure even though it's made of snow, and being able to have DJs play there as well as at their mid-mountain restaurant and the base). I'm sure I'm only hearing one side of the story here, but at the same time, I understand the frustration of having to jump through hoops you have no control over just to do your job.