Lawsuit over Disneyland's Magic Key Passport

[DisneyJamieCA]

Just because you didn't have an issue that means what? It can't possibly be an issue?

Playing devil’s advocate- doesn’t that mean just because the woman suing had a problem, doesn’t mean there is a problem?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Playing devil’s advocate- doesn’t that mean just because the woman suing had a problem, doesn’t mean there is a problem?

Depends on just how much manipulation is done of which we'll probably never know about.

If she filed just for herself rather than on behalf of 3,600 people it could still end up going somewhere.

Her contention is advertising, and how the product was sold. It only takes 1 person to call attention to that for it to be uncovered to be an issue (if an issue is to be found) A rabbit hole of issues can also be discovered in the process (part of the conversation regarding just how far Disney is willing to go here).

I think we can reasonably assume she's not the only AP holder who ran into availability issues and thought something was afoul. She does happen to be a named AP holder who opted to take legal action. I do believe in the filing they asked for there to be room to formally name people when/if they come forth/are formally found. We've seen enough times with things to know it's rarely just 1 person (speaking about far more than Disney or an AP and reservation system).

If no one questions things nothing can be done and sometimes things should be done (spoken generically about many things) not necessarily spoken regarding this particular case.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

Depends on just how much manipulation is done of which we'll probably never know about.

If she filed just for herself rather than on behalf of 3,600 people it could still end up going somewhere.

Her contention is advertising, and how the product was sold. It only takes 1 person to call attention to that for it to be uncovered to be an issue (if an issue is to be found) A rabbit hole of issues can also be discovered in the process (part of the conversation regarding just how far Disney is willing to go here).

I think we can reasonably assume she's not the only AP holder who ran into availability issues and thought something was afoul. She does happen to be a named AP holder who opted to take legal action. I do believe in the filing they asked for there to be room to formally name people when/if they come forth/are formally found. We've seen enough times with things to know it's rarely just 1 person (speaking about far more than Disney or an AP and reservation system).

If no one questions things nothing can be done and sometimes things should be done (spoken generically about many things) not necessarily spoken regarding this particular case.

And we can just as easily say Longboard wasn’t the only AP holder who didn’t experience any problems. I can say I was there over Thanksgiving and talked with quite a few AP holders who had every Sat booked in late Nov and early Dec. So it was possible.

I don’t know how this will all end up, but it’s not fair to continually come after Longboard, when it goes both ways.

 

[MillauFr]

The win should be if there is still park capacity anyone with valid media, whether it is a one day pass or an AP that isn't blacked out that day, should get the reservation on a first come bases. No prioritizing one kind of media over another.

Why wouldn't Disney prioritize groups who are big spenders over others? Our state transportation agency prioritizes drivers who are willing to pay and gives them special lanes to drive in. Why wouldn't a private corporation do the same thing?

 

[bcla]

Depends on just how much manipulation is done of which we'll probably never know about.

If she filed just for herself rather than on behalf of 3,600 people it could still end up going somewhere.

This was indeed filed as a class action, so it's not necessarily just benefitting one plaintiff. I wouldn't be like one of the most ludicrous rulings I ever heard of, which was case of a BMW sold in Alabama that was damaged on the lot and repainted without disclosure to the customer. The jury that ruled in his favor awarded him $4000 in compensatory damages and then also awarded HIM the equivalent in punitive damages ($4 million) for EVERY person in the state who might have encountered the same thing over several years. That was really bizarre for just a repainted car. The Alabama Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages to $2 million before the US Supreme Court ruled that it was still excessive and reduced it to $50,000 on remand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And we can just as easily say Longboard wasn’t the only AP holder who didn’t experience any problems. I can say I was there over Thanksgiving and talked with quite a few AP holders who had every Sat booked in late Nov and early Dec. So it was possible.

I don’t know how this will all end up, but it’s not fair to continually come after Longboard, when it goes both ways.

It was more the way it was put out there in multiple comments. Sounds more like they are just tired of the complaints which is fine but just being tired of the complaints doesn't mean there isn't something going on here. Someone's personal habits for when they want to go obviously can't match every AP holders patterns so just because their habits work out in perfect unison doesn't necessarily mean someone else's is. Your point is taken about responding although that in itself goes both ways too (if the comments continue to be it works for me there's no problem then it should be able to continue to be said it didn't work for the plaintiff thus the lawsuit). But I can move on from all that as you do have a point.

In all this discussion what's being missed is the plaintiff looked and didn't see availability (a good amount). It doesn't matter if you, longboard or anyone else looked at some other physical date in time and found availability. No one actually said it wasn't possible. The plaintiff is saying when she looked it was not available for 17 days. We can see that Disney added more availability (whether increasing the capacity for APs or shifting the availability at some point).

It's a diversion tactic IMO from the actual lawsuit to say "well if you had just looked at some other random point in time like I did you would have seen availability was there, if you had just kept checking all the time". In this case she was bringing to light that "hey all these dates are unavailable but they actually aren't unavailable they are unavailable to me and to me specifically because I'm an AP holder and I'm an AP holder that was advertised to me (in her opinion) as no blockout dates but I'm actually not able to use my AP to get into the parks on these days". Even if she could have found availability later on would it not still be the case that for 17 days in November when she looked was unavailable for her when it wasn't for others? A lawsuit could have still been filed to show these difference in availability buckets even if she had seen availability later on because it was the questioning of the unavailable for her but available to others. Even if it was 1 day and 1 day only throughout the entire year the in your face different availabilities would have been there. It just on the surface looks more egregious to have that many days in a given month be unavailable except if you purchased normal tickets.

I personally wouldn't have sued for this (I ain't got the money for that lol) but I don't besmirch this plaintiff (as it stands right now with what we know) just because she did file a lawsuit on this particular issue.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This was indeed filed as a class action, so it's not necessarily just benefitting one plaintiff. I wouldn't be like one of the most ludicrous rulings I ever heard of, which was case of a BMW sold in Alabama that was damaged on the lot and repainted without disclosure to the customer. The jury that ruled in his favor awarded him $4000 in compensatory damages and then also awarded HIM the equivalent in punitive damages ($4 million) for EVERY person in the state who might have encountered the same thing over several years. That was really bizarre for just a repainted car. The Alabama Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages to $2 million before the US Supreme Court ruled that it was still excessive and reduced it to $50,000 on remand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America,_Inc._v._Gore

My apologies I know it was a class action, I was saying even if it was just her filing on behalf of herself not on behalf of others it still could have gone somewhere. The filing on behalf of others (and for the amount) just elevates things. But she as an individual still could have sued Disney.

I agree about your Alabama BMW case, rather strange I'd say.

 

[bcla]

My apologies I know it was a class action, I was saying even if it was just her filing on behalf of herself not on behalf of others it still could have gone somewhere. The filing on behalf of others (and for the amount) just elevates things. But she as an individual still could have sued Disney.

I agree about your Alabama BMW case, rather strange I'd say.

I don't believe a single plaintiff spending $1400 per pass is going to be enough for an attorney to take the case. A class action would bump the value to make it worth an attorney's time. However, I'm not quite sure how a single plaintiff might be able to file something like this in small claims court.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't believe a single plaintiff spending $1400 per pass is going to be enough for an attorney to take the case. A class action would bump the value to make it worth an attorney's time. However, I'm not quite sure how a single plaintiff might be able to file something like this in small claims court.

I didn't say anything about an attorney taking a case but I'm not sure how you could say there wouldn't be anyone out there, attorneys have taken cases for far less and for all sorts of reasons, their reasons are their own and not up for me to speculate upon. But irrespective of all that it's not actually my point of my comment. Whether she's filing on behalf of a bunch of people or behalf of herself it's all the same in terms of what she's claiming and could still go somewhere whether that's just PR getting out about it or something actually being filed, or something actually going somewhere which is what I had said. I'm sure they are being strategic in the number of both others in the case and the number requested however. Respectfully not personally going down a path of trying to find out the minute legalities involved in CA regarding a suit.

 

[bcla]

I didn't say anything about an attorney taking a case but I'm not sure how you could say there wouldn't be anyone out there, attorneys have taken cases for far less and for all sorts of reasons, their reasons are their own and not up for me to speculate upon. But irrespective of all that it's not actually my point of my comment. Whether she's filing on behalf of a bunch of people or behalf of herself it's all the same in terms of what she's claiming and could still go somewhere whether that's just PR getting out about it or something actually being filed, or something actually going somewhere which is what I had said. I'm sure they are being strategic in the number of both others in the case and the number requested however. Respectfully not personally going down a path of trying to find out the minute legalities involved in CA regarding a suit.

I'm not necessarily getting into the legal minutiae, but it frankly wouldn't make sense for a plaintiff to hire an attorney over something this small on a personal basis. Most of these are done on a contingency basis and without a big enough potential payout since there will be costs. And absolutely this case is about money although they're probably also trying to force Disney's hand. The lead plaintiff might really want it badly enough to spend that much time and emotion, but in the end it's not really an individual suing but the attorney suing on behalf of a group of people.

I get that there are some attorneys that take civil pro bono cases, but that's usually not when it's about potential monetary damages. That's usually about things like a claimed violation of civil rights.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm not necessarily getting into the legal minutiae, but it frankly wouldn't make sense for a plaintiff to hire an attorney over something this small on a personal basis. Most of these are done on a contingency basis and without a big enough potential payout since there will be costs. And absolutely this case is about money although they're probably also trying to force Disney's hand. The lead plaintiff might really want it badly enough to spend that much time and emotion, but in the end it's not really an individual suing but the attorney suing on behalf of a group of people.

I get that there are some attorneys that take civil pro bono cases, but that's usually not when it's about potential monetary damages. That's usually about things like a claimed violation of civil rights.

Okay

This is what my comment was "If she filed just for herself rather than on behalf of 3,600 people it could still end up going somewhere." Nothing more nothing less

 

[PirateBrigade]

Why wouldn't Disney prioritize groups who are big spenders over others? Our state transportation agency prioritizes drivers who are willing to pay and gives them special lanes to drive in. Why wouldn't a private corporation do the same thing?

It boils down to transparency. I can see the traffic on the 91 freeway and the express lanes and make an informed decision, I can see the capacity of an airplane (or the fare bucket with Southwest) before buying airline points to cash in for a seat.

Put another way, the DL AP1 is like if the 241 toll road was advertising clear/unrestricted access on its electronic billboard, and I exit, pay, and end up in traffic. There was no way for me to know until I got past the toll gantry that there was traffic. Is that deceptive? Yeah, that billboard should not have advertised a clear freeway. It would be defensible if, say, a car accident out of the control of the toll authority caused the delay...but what Disneyland is doing is the equivalent of putting up traffic cones blocking the rest of the freeway, and prioritizing cash payers over the FasTrak users.

 

[Moliphino]

Put another way, the DL AP1 is like if the 241 toll road was advertising clear/unrestricted access on its electronic billboard, and I exit, pay, and end up in traffic. There was no way for me to know until I got past the toll gantry that there was traffic. Is that deceptive? Yeah, that billboard should not have advertised a clear freeway. It would be defensible if, say, a car accident out of the control of the toll authority caused the delay...but what Disneyland is doing is the equivalent of putting up traffic cones blocking the rest of the freeway, and prioritizing cash payers over the FasTrak users.

What if the traffic was because a whole bunch of other people also saw the billboard and decided to do the same as you?

 

[PirateBrigade]

What if the traffic was because a whole bunch of other people also saw the billboard and decided to do the same as you?

Then generally the same, the electronic advertisement was misleading. But that’s not what happened at Disneyland, the traffic jam was artificially created, and the evidence for that is the availability of tickets to get through the gate.

If all forms of entry media were blocked, this would be completely defensible and DLR could throw its hands up and say “best efforts were made, we were full” especially in the backdrop of labor shortages and pandemic. They would be able to argue that “capacity” was out of its control, and not artificially contrived as plaintiff alleges.

 

[PirateBrigade]

I do wonder sometimes whether the "sudden open availability" for APs a) coincided with the filing of this lawsuit, b) occurred as a result of/in response to increased staffing, c) some combination of the two, or d) was completely unrelated/coincidental.

 

[DLgal]

I do wonder sometimes whether the "sudden open availability" for APs a) coincided with the filing of this lawsuit, b) occurred as a result of/in response to increased staffing, c) some combination of the two, or d) was completely unrelated/coincidental.

Some combination of all of the above, I would guess. We will never really know.

 

[PirateBrigade]

We will never really know.

Unless Disney takes legal advice from the peanut gallery here and drags this lawsuit out/fights to the end... whooo discovery!

 

[bcla]

Unless Disney takes legal advice from the peanut gallery here and drags this lawsuit out/fights to the end... whooo discovery!

I'll try to stay out of politics, but there was one prominent person in the news who claimed that he wanted to be sued because he would be allowed to use discovery to go after specific claims. At least until he got sued and realized that the plaintiff could afford better attorneys than him.

However, in this case discovery is extremely relevant to the claims. I mentioned the case with Scientology. That wasn't actually from discovery but a result of a search warrant. I guess that was before everything was digitized and made available on court websites. But absolutely they were terrified of this stuff leaking out and sent people to try to effectively keep others from copying after they were unsealed by a judge (but later resealed). They later tried to get a federal court to rule that the stuff that had gotten out in the public couldn't legally be disseminated, but that's not like any other stuff (think Pentagon Papers) where they can't the dissemination after something has already gone out into the wild.

But in this era isn't pretty hard to hide stuff that gets digitized. I'm pretty sure that if there's discovery, we'd be talking about the numbers here within minutes.

 

[DLgal]

I just saw today on Twitter that the lawsuit has been allowed by the court to proceed. The judge denied Disney's attempt to dismiss it.

Interesting. Apparently the court agrees with the plaintiff about the lack of clarity regarding reservation availability and agrees that an average consumer can be misled by the stated "no blockout dates" in conjunction with "reservations are subject to availability" language, since Disney did not clearly state that passholder reservation availability is different than day ticket or hotel guest availability.

This sounds like Disney may end up being forced to eliminate the multiple buckets system of reservations or eliminate the reservation system entirely. This will not end up only being about Dream keys, because the basis of the argument is that Disney has engaged in false advertising. This can extend out to everyone who purchased ANY magic key OR park ticket. Not good for Disney.

 

[PirateBrigade]

Update June 2023.

The legal process is chugging along, I checked PACER and there's a bunch of documents in the last month or so arguing for or against the certification of this suit as a class action lawsuit.

Most of the juicy stuff is redacted, unfortunately. I wanted to read the "Kirk Fair Report" Disney commissioned for the AP program but also redacted.

Latest document Disney uploaded was the McGuinty vs. P&G lawsuit where the plantiff alleged that "NATURE FUSION" with an image of an avocado and a leaf on a bottle of shampoo was misleading and implied all the ingredients were natural. He lost that lawsuit, but the 9th circuit judge wrote that the labeling was problematic.

IMO that was really random and has nothing to do with the term "NO BLOCKOUT DATES." But I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure there was some value there.

Also, fun fact, Disney was taking screenshots of message boards with discussions of the passes and using that in their arguments. So, let me end this post by saying, HELLO DISNEY LAWYERS HI DAVID MARCUS COME HAVE A CORN DOG!