Lawsuit over Disneyland's Magic Key Passport

[MakiraMarlena]

yeah, it would be interstate jurisdictions. I wasn't aware Disney had already moved corporate HQ to Florida. is there such a thing as a federal civil class action? I haven't practiced law in a lot of years.

 

[DLgal]

It's not even in the fine print, it's right in the pass description: "Park reservations are subject to availability and are not guaranteed for any specific dates or park".

Sure, but what would you say to the fact that there was STILL AVAILABILITY for day ticket guests on days where there was NOT for the "no blockout" Dream Key? This is the whole point of the suit. Disney is using a term that can reasonably be assumed to mean something very specific: availability to enter the park (i.e. a "spot" in the capacity). Where Disney went wrong was not specifying that EACH ADMISSION MEDIA TYPE has different availability for each day. They did not make that clear. You cannot say "no blackouts" and say "reservations are subject to availability" and tell Dream Key holders a given day is unavailable to THEM, but not to someone who is willing to buy a one day ticket. That is false advertising. What they needed to have clarified was something like "Dream Key reservations are limited to X% of daily reservation capacity." With a statement like that, they would have been in the clear.

 

[DLgal]

It would be very interesting if they severely reduce the number of reservations available to pass holders around Christmas.

They've done the exact opposite. As soon as this lawsuit was actually filed, the dates opened up for Dream Key holders like magic. Every day from now until Jan 6 is available, and many days in January have opened up as well.

We were in the parks yesterday and they were not even as full as most of the weekends in October that we went. Seems Disney really overestimated how many people would buy Day tickets over these 2 weeks and frantically released more Dream Key slots so they would actually have crowds.

What's funnier was that NO ONE is buying the ILL for ROTR. We redeemed a DAS yesterday and were the only people in the return line and the standby line was 120 minutes long.

 

[PirateBrigade]

Sure, but what would you say to the fact that there was STILL AVAILABILITY for day ticket guests on days where there was NOT for the "no blockout" Dream Key? This is the whole point of the suit. Disney is using a term that can reasonably be assumed to mean something very specific: availability to enter the park (i.e. a "spot" in the capacity). Where Disney went wrong was not specifying that EACH ADMISSION MEDIA TYPE has different availability for each day. They did not make that clear. You cannot say "no blackouts" and say "reservations are subject to availability" and tell Dream Key holders a given day is unavailable to THEM, but not to someone who is willing to buy a one day ticket. That is false advertising. What they needed to have clarified was something like "Dream Key reservations are limited to X% of daily reservation capacity." With a statement like that, they would have been in the clear.

Agree, and even a top-line statement/title like “Unrestricted all-access pass subject to access restrictions” is misleading, even if it’s all the same font size and not buried in the fine print.

I find their usage of “capacity” also problematic, because that implies actual, real, physical or legal constraint…and the constraint imposed was, in fact, artificial.

 

[DLgal]

I find their usage of “capacity” also problematic, because that implies actual, real, physical or legal constraint…and the constraint imposed was, in fact, artificial.

Yup. The actual lawsuit revolves around their misleading use of that term, specifically.

 

[starry_solo]

yeah, it would be interstate jurisdictions. I wasn't aware Disney had already moved corporate HQ to Florida. is there such a thing as a federal civil class action? I haven't practiced law in a lot of years.

Yes there is such a thing!

 

[bcla]

yeah, it would be interstate jurisdictions. I wasn't aware Disney had already moved corporate HQ to Florida. is there such a thing as a federal civil class action? I haven't practiced law in a lot of years.

Disney Parks and Resorts is headquartered in Florida. Disney corporate is still in Burbank.

 

[ChrisFL]

I found a solution....

Disney needs to finally build that theme park/resort in Texas that's always rumored get the crowds to go there

 

[RangerPooh]

I have mixed feelings on this one. We are WDW AP holders these days, but understand that our no blockout dates only applies to if a reservation is available. In 2020 after the parks reopened and into 21, we had to adjust a few of our park visitation days due to no AP ressies available. Yes it is frustrating. Yes it made us question the value of our AP, but we also understood what the limitations would be when the parks reopened. Gone was park hopping (at the time), gone was the freedom of spontaneity in park visitation. Our vacations took more planning and willing to adjust.

I recognize that DL has two parks compared to WDW. Until we moved to the south we were DL AP holders. Yet even then if park capacity was reached (thinking peak periods) there was no guarantee if admittance. I believe the only ones with a guarantee then we’re those staying on property.

Was there false advertising? Possibly. But the ticket. Yet the reservation system has been in place for over a year at WDW, and a few months at DL. It’s been known that limitations exist. Does this person deserve their money back if not satisfied? Possibly, but not the huge sum they’re requesting. I’d also question how far in advance their trying to make reservations and for what days. Peak periods have no guarantee.

 

[Moliphino]

Sure, but what would you say to the fact that there was STILL AVAILABILITY for day ticket guests on days where there was NOT for the "no blockout" Dream Key? This is the whole point of the suit. Disney is using a term that can reasonably be assumed to mean something very specific: availability to enter the park (i.e. a "spot" in the capacity). Where Disney went wrong was not specifying that EACH ADMISSION MEDIA TYPE has different availability for each day. They did not make that clear. You cannot say "no blackouts" and say "reservations are subject to availability" and tell Dream Key holders a given day is unavailable to THEM, but not to someone who is willing to buy a one day ticket. That is false advertising. What they needed to have clarified was something like "Dream Key reservations are limited to X% of daily reservation capacity." With a statement like that, they would have been in the clear.

I've been following the park reservation stuff (more for WDW) since it started, so I've known about the different buckets for different tickets for over a year. It is what it is, they aren't hiding it. The Disneyland website makes the availability calendars for each different ticket type available so you can make an informed decision.

 

[KPeterso]

What's funnier was that NO ONE is buying the ILL for ROTR. We redeemed a DAS yesterday and were the only people in the return line and the standby line was 120 minutes long.

We were there on saturday and also used DAS at ROTR, and there were definitely people in the Lightening Lane when we rode it. We stopped still outside when we walked in. Still shorter wait than the standby, but probably waited about 8-10 minutes in the line. And these were definitely not all DAS groups.

 

[PirateBrigade]

Was there false advertising? Possibly. But the ticket. Yet the reservation system has been in place for over a year at WDW, and a few months at DL. It’s been known that limitations exist. Does this person deserve their money back if not satisfied? Possibly, but not the huge sum they’re requesting. I’d also question how far in advance their trying to make reservations and for what days. Peak periods have no guarantee.

I've been following the park reservation stuff (more for WDW) since it started, so I've known about the different buckets for different tickets for over a year. It is what it is, they aren't hiding it. The Disneyland website makes the availability calendars for each different ticket type available so you can make an informed decision.

See, I'm torn in my opinion, because I also fully understood that blackout dates and reservation limitations are two factors that go into limiting the AP.

But us DISboards folks are probably > 2 standard deviations above the average level of understanding for these passes, we have threads dedicated to strategy and gamification of the AP system, and we relish every single piece of minutiae that comes out about these passes.

When I strip that away and try to look at it from a lay perspective -- the average person may not understand that "capacity" restrictions can, in fact, be arbitrarily imposed by Disney. That is the heart of the lawsuit. Up until the Magic Key era, the capacity restrictions as they have been understood are due to factors beyond the control of Disney -- the imposition of a "fire marshal" capacity that is fixed, force majeure events, etc... it's a rational thought that capacity is a fixed bucket.

If there is single-day ticket availability, but not AP availability, is there not capacity in the park? Right, it's the wrong kind of capacity. Then what did the plaintiff purchase and agree to, and what was advertised?

 

[DLgal]

I've been following the park reservation stuff (more for WDW) since it started, so I've known about the different buckets for different tickets for over a year. It is what it is, they aren't hiding it. The Disneyland website makes the availability calendars for each different ticket type available so you can make an informed decision.

Right, so you admit you aren't the average parkgoer. You are hyper aware of the situation. The court of law considers the "lay person", not the fanatic. An availability calendar still doesn't tell the whole picture. The fact that there are different availability calendars is the actual issue in this lawsuit. A lot of this is going to come down to the "no blackout" language used in conjunction with the terms "availability" and "capacity." The judge will decide if the terms were used properly in good faith to accurately describe the item being sold and its usability.

I suspect this will settle out of court, but as part of the settlement, Disney will be required to either change language, drop the "no blackout days" from the Dream Key, and potentially stop using different reservation "buckets." They may be forced to be more transparent about whether there's reservations available to everyone or not.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Sure, but what would you say to the fact that there was STILL AVAILABILITY for day ticket guests on days where there was NOT for the "no blockout" Dream Key? This is the whole point of the suit. Disney is using a term that can reasonably be assumed to mean something very specific: availability to enter the park (i.e. a "spot" in the capacity). Where Disney went wrong was not specifying that EACH ADMISSION MEDIA TYPE has different availability for each day. They did not make that clear. You cannot say "no blackouts" and say "reservations are subject to availability" and tell Dream Key holders a given day is unavailable to THEM, but not to someone who is willing to buy a one day ticket. That is false advertising. What they needed to have clarified was something like "Dream Key reservations are limited to X% of daily reservation capacity." With a statement like that, they would have been in the clear.

I'd say too bad. Yes you can say no blackouts and say reservations are subject to availability. It's crystal clear. A black out day means you can't enter with that pass that day period. And it has been that way out at DL for years. They always had passes with black outs for less money than passes without. In this case reservations for pass holders was full. That is not a black out and therefore not false advertising. Their website is pretty detailed with availability calendars. Somebody didn't get their way. And now they're all hurt inside and they're going to sue. What are the chances it's pgoing to go class action and the attorneys will clean up and the consumers will get $100 off next year's AP (that went up $200 in price) when Disney was planning to but didn't announce that they were going to offer $100 off next year's AP for current pass holders anyway. Lawsuits like this are the reason my Christmas lights come with a huge sticker with 50 warnings on it, most of them just common sense. Oh wait. Disney uses xmas lights. They contain lead and there's no lead warning on my AP. I'M GONNA SUE!!!!! You can thank me for that $5 off your $500 hotel bill coupon you're going to get later.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

the average level of understanding for these passes, we have threads dedicated to strategy and gamification of the AP system, and we relish every single piece of minutiae that comes out about these passes.

This is where I was coming from.

Plus sometimes it really is that companies did a poor job of ensuring the consumer was fully aware of xyz. There's plenty of things people can think of where companies have either had a PR mess or sometimes legal action brought against them due to either practices or marketing or wording that was done completely intentional or sometimes inadvertently.

IMO as much as there can be frivolous lawsuits not all are and as a consumer we become protected at times when people do things about it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'd say too bad. Yes you can say no blackouts and say reservations are subject to availability. It's crystal clear. A black out day means you can't enter with that pass that day period. And it has been that way out at DL for years. They always had passes with black outs for less money than passes without. In this case reservations for pass holders was full. That is not a black out and therefore not false advertising. Their website is pretty detailed with availability calendars. Somebody didn't get their way. And now they're all hurt inside and they're going to sue. What are the chances it's pgoing to go class action and the attorneys will clean up and the consumers will get $100 off next year's AP (that went up $200 in price) when Disney was planning to but didn't announce that they were going to offer $100 off next year's AP for current pass holders anyway. Lawsuits like this are the reason my Christmas lights come with a huge sticker with 50 warnings on it, most of them just common sense. Oh wait. Disney uses xmas lights. They contain lead and there's no lead warning on my AP. I'M GONNA SUE!!!!! You can thank me for that $5 off your $500 hotel bill coupon you're going to get later.

I had trouble following your argument with all the over the top examples

I think there may have been a butt hurt in there too, what does Christmas light warnings have to do with this and lead? And I got confused with your talk about dollar off an AP for next year, etc

But perhaps I just need more crystal clear explanation (truly joking as I really don't, really really don't)

 

[PirateBrigade]

I had trouble following your argument with all the over the top examples

I think there may have been a butt hurt in there too, what does Christmas light warnings have to do with this and lead? And I got confused with your talk about dollar off an AP for next year, etc

But perhaps I just need more crystal clear explanation (truly joking as I really don't, really really don't)

lol glad I wasn’t the only one struggling.

Oh but if there’s lead in the Christmas lights at Disneyland, I’m 100% joining that lawsuit… because that stuff will wreak havoc on your brain, and my DISboards posts won’t make a lick of sense after that!

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I had trouble following your argument with all the over the top examples

I think there may have been a butt hurt in there too, what does Christmas light warnings have to do with this and lead? And I got confused with your talk about dollar off an AP for next year, etc

But perhaps I just need more crystal clear explanation (truly joking as I really don't, really really don't)

Well Allrighty then. Sue me for taking out the butt hurt line and replacing it with something a little less graphic

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

lol glad I wasn’t the only one struggling.

Oh but if there’s lead in the Christmas lights at Disneyland, I’m 100% joining that lawsuit… because that stuff will wreak havoc on your brain, and my DISboards posts won’t make a lick of sense after that!

Lead will sure do that to you! Although I don't think anyone could claim that would be a silly lawsuit to file

 

[PirateBrigade]

Anyway back to case discussion…

Does anyone have a case number? I ran a query in PACER for the US District Court - Southern District for Nielsen and Disney, no dice.

ETA: found it, wrong venue, it’s in the central district.

Party NameNielsen, Jenale (pla)

Case Number8:2021cv02055

Case TitleJenale Nielsen v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. et al

CourtCalifornia Central District Court