jcb
always emerging from hibernation
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
Yesterday, two (former) platinum pass holders filed a lawsuit against WDW alleging Disney should not have required platinum pas (and platinum plus pass) holders to make park reservations and should not have restricted park hopping, even as WDW modified it to allow park hopping after 2 pm.
The guests claim that when they bought their annual passes, they were promised no blackout dates. But when they tried to book a WDW trip in November 2020, they were initially allotted only three days each of park reservations at one time. As the complaint then alleges:
The complaint specifically challenges the limits on passholder reservations when other ticket types are not restricted. According to the complaint, the passholder wanted to go to WDW with a significant other who had a multiday ticket. The passholder then discovered she:
The complaint acknowledges WDW changed the pass system in September 2021 to specifically make passes subject to the reservation system. The complaint does not clearly challenges the changes, though it does allege one plaintiff was "forced to accept" the terms of the new passes or lose a platinum pass saved in her account that would not expire until 2030.
The lawsuit seeks over $5 million on behalf of a class of platinum and platinum plus pass holders. It alleges WDW breached an implied contract, was unjustly enriched and violated Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices act.
The complaint is interesting in that it tries to avoid getting into whether the pandemic causing reservation restrictions. Perhaps unnecessarily. Courts have been quite reluctant to let companies use the pandemic to breach implied agreements. For example, universities that refused to refund tuition and/or fees when classes changed to remote only are being sued and courts are holding the complaint at least states a claim for breach of an implied contract. One recent decision permitted a lawsuit against Tulane University to move forward. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-30681-CV0.pdf
Even so, the complaint focuses on times the passholder could not get a reservation but the passholder's significant other could. The complaint also cites a March 2022 statement by Disney's CFO that the parks would not be returning to normal, pre-pandemic capacities, though I'm not sure how this statement shows WDW will indefinitely continue requiring reservations or why that matters from a legal standpoint. I did check the actual statement (the complaint cites to a quasi WDW news site) and the CFO's actual statement, which was
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2022/02/CMM-MS-2022-0307.pdf
Again, I don't follow why WDW's plans for 2022 and later matter in a lawsuit alleging breaches that occurred in 2020 or 2021. In fact, when I first read the lawsuit, my initial thought was the plaintiffs were not going to get very far if they were complaining about changes they agreed to (even over their objections) when they renewed their AP's.
I last had an AP in 2019 (I live a day's drive from WDW) but didn't renew in 2020. So, I haven't kept up with all the changes to APs and if I'm missing something please educate me.
The guests claim that when they bought their annual passes, they were promised no blackout dates. But when they tried to book a WDW trip in November 2020, they were initially allotted only three days each of park reservations at one time. As the complaint then alleges:
After dozens of phone calls to Disney expressing their frustration with this, including one phone call with a thirteen-hour hold period, Disney proposed a solution that ultimately required cancelling their original reservation, which was at a reduced price, and rebooking the reservation at a price three times higher than the original reservation. Additionally, the Florida locals in their group would be charged an extra $15.00 each day.
The complaint specifically challenges the limits on passholder reservations when other ticket types are not restricted. According to the complaint, the passholder wanted to go to WDW with a significant other who had a multiday ticket. The passholder then discovered she:
was unable to obtain park reservations on days her significant other could, using his multi-day pass. In other words, Disney had park reservations available for many days it had blocked out to Platinum Pass holders. Once again, if this was an issue of capacity, there would not be availability for any new reservations. Instead, Disney is doing nothing more than taking advantage of customers who pre-paid a premium for unlimited access, by limiting these same customers’ access to the parks, so Disney can charge new guests at the expense of the annual pass holders that have already pre-paid.
The complaint acknowledges WDW changed the pass system in September 2021 to specifically make passes subject to the reservation system. The complaint does not clearly challenges the changes, though it does allege one plaintiff was "forced to accept" the terms of the new passes or lose a platinum pass saved in her account that would not expire until 2030.
The lawsuit seeks over $5 million on behalf of a class of platinum and platinum plus pass holders. It alleges WDW breached an implied contract, was unjustly enriched and violated Florida's deceptive and unfair trade practices act.
The complaint is interesting in that it tries to avoid getting into whether the pandemic causing reservation restrictions. Perhaps unnecessarily. Courts have been quite reluctant to let companies use the pandemic to breach implied agreements. For example, universities that refused to refund tuition and/or fees when classes changed to remote only are being sued and courts are holding the complaint at least states a claim for breach of an implied contract. One recent decision permitted a lawsuit against Tulane University to move forward. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-30681-CV0.pdf
Even so, the complaint focuses on times the passholder could not get a reservation but the passholder's significant other could. The complaint also cites a March 2022 statement by Disney's CFO that the parks would not be returning to normal, pre-pandemic capacities, though I'm not sure how this statement shows WDW will indefinitely continue requiring reservations or why that matters from a legal standpoint. I did check the actual statement (the complaint cites to a quasi WDW news site) and the CFO's actual statement, which was
Morgan Stanley: What does full capacity mean looking forward at the parks, and can you give us any sense of sort of where you guys are today?
Christine McCarthy - Senior EVP and CFO, The Walt Disney Company
We are coming back to full - towards full capacity. We're not yet there. But one of the things we were able to do when the parks were closed was really look at some of the underlying technologies for how we could run the business better and give a better consumer experience.
One of the key lynchpins on this was a reservation system. Now, we needed that when we were limited, severely limited in capacity when the government restrictions were such that you could only allow 10%, 20%, 25% in.
But then we saw that we could actually use this even when the restrictions were lifted. That we know how many people are going to the park on a given day. And if they've filled up a certain amount, or how many reservations would be left for people just walking up at the last minute.
But it allows us to better balance load throughout the year, throughout the week, throughout the month. And so that's something that has really given us a toggle for how we're going to manage attendance.
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2022/02/CMM-MS-2022-0307.pdf
Again, I don't follow why WDW's plans for 2022 and later matter in a lawsuit alleging breaches that occurred in 2020 or 2021. In fact, when I first read the lawsuit, my initial thought was the plaintiffs were not going to get very far if they were complaining about changes they agreed to (even over their objections) when they renewed their AP's.
I last had an AP in 2019 (I live a day's drive from WDW) but didn't renew in 2020. So, I haven't kept up with all the changes to APs and if I'm missing something please educate me.