Magic Key Renewals

[whiteness]

"No earlier than 9am."

East Coast?

 

[DisneylandFan22]

We should definitely know something in 7-10 business months.

 

[Kender]

East Coast?

Nah just wherever the dart lands on the board that day! Maybe it'll be UTC this time!

 

[DLgal]

"No earlier than 9am."

We will all be riding the Thunder Mountain GIF all morning.

 

[Beatitude]

I imagine that Disney is between a rock and a hard place here. They must seriously be trying to settle the lawsuit before they open up magic key renewals. They definitely intend to alter any representation made with regard to capacity, To do so while the suit remains outstanding would be a tacit admission of guilt. Opening up renewals without addressing the issue only increases their ongoing lawsuit exposure. They will wait until the very last minute and settle. It’ll be just a drop in the magic key renewal revenue bucket, regardless.

 

[whiteness]

I imagine that Disney is between a rock and a hard place here. They must seriously be trying to settle the lawsuit before they open up magic key renewals. They definitely intend to alter any representation made with regard to capacity, To do so while the suit remains outstanding would be a tacit admission of guilt. Opening up renewals without addressing the issue only increases their ongoing lawsuit exposure. They will wait until the very last minute and settle. It’ll be just a drop in the magic key renewal revenue bucket, regardless.

The terms of the settlement might actually dictate the wording of their marketing and terms and conditions.

 

[AndrewC]

I highly doubt Disney is that worried about the lawsuit and renewals. Even if it was a “huge blow” to Disney, it’s going to be cheaper than when they refunded everyone’s passes because the parks were closed! Disney could’ve kicked that can down the road and just said passes would be good for the remaining days (or maybe reset for a full year) when the park reopened at normal capacity. Not making money is wildly different (and preferred) compared to paying out money.

Disney has pretty rock solid language and terms. I don’t think they’ll be found guilty for a bait and switch or not disclosing the terms, what it will come down to is if a normal minded person understands the difference between no black out dates and reservations are not guaranteed and access might be restricted. I’m no lawyer, but this will probably come down to marketing issues and nuances, even if Disney is found to have misrepresented the passes in marketing material, I don’t think they’ll be found guilty in failing to deliver what the purchase of a pass gave the customer. I think they could continue to sell the passes now without too much repercussion on the back end. Possibly they’ll make the guests agree to the legal terms specifically by checking a button before the check out page, but I’m not even sure that would look bad on Disney in court as long as the language of the terms was the same.

Those terms pretty clearly spelled out how you could gain access to the parks and that no specific amount of access was guaranteed at any time, even on the high end pass that says it’s good for every day of the year.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney might have to add some kind of information to their web page or calendar to illustrate demand for certain days (maybe a cartoon gauge that show “normal demand” and then “high demand book soon!” and then “sold out” or something), but that’s probably it.

The biggest thing would be if internally there was a pattern of artificially reducing availability of passes even when demand wasn’t high. I’m not entirely sure Disney has done that though. There’s no doubt the parks have been busy, even if from just one day sales that weren’t pre-planned way in advance. I would think it would need to be no annual pass reservations available AND the parks were entirely dead feeling to raise issues. Otherwise Disney could just say that based on historical ticketing data they knew XYZ days would be busy with single day guests and they adjusted pass capacity in anticipation of it. Then surprise surprise, the actual attendance on those days were incredibly high and good thing Disney reduced pass reservations. Disney could even point to a continuous challenge to staff the parks and that caused capacity issues beyond Disney’s control. Again, not a lawyer, and I do know there could be some negligence, but it could also just be poor management without intent to defraud pass holders and Disney could have been “trying to do everything in their power” to correct capacity issues. (Posted 100 job postings and actively hiring but no one was applying, etc).

 

[DLgal]

I highly doubt Disney is that worried about the lawsuit and renewals. Even if it was a “huge blow” to Disney, it’s going to be cheaper than when they refunded everyone’s passes because the parks were closed! Disney could’ve kicked that can down the road and just said passes would be good for the remaining days (or maybe reset for a full year) when the park reopened at normal capacity. Not making money is wildly different (and preferred) compared to paying out money.

Disney has pretty rock solid language and terms. I don’t think they’ll be found guilty for a bait and switch or not disclosing the terms, what it will come down to is if a normal minded person understands the difference between no black out dates and reservations are not guaranteed and access might be restricted. I’m no lawyer, but this will probably come down to marketing issues and nuances, even if Disney is found to have misrepresented the passes in marketing material, I don’t think they’ll be found guilty in failing to deliver what the purchase of a pass gave the customer. I think they could continue to sell the passes now without too much repercussion on the back end. Possibly they’ll make the guests agree to the legal terms specifically by checking a button before the check out page, but I’m not even sure that would look bad on Disney in court as long as the language of the terms was the same.

Those terms pretty clearly spelled out how you could gain access to the parks and that no specific amount of access was guaranteed at any time, even on the high end pass that says it’s good for every day of the year.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney might have to add some kind of information to their web page or calendar to illustrate demand for certain days (maybe a cartoon gauge that show “normal demand” and then “high demand book soon!” and then “sold out” or something), but that’s probably it.

The biggest thing would be if internally there was a pattern of artificially reducing availability of passes even when demand wasn’t high. I’m not entirely sure Disney has done that though. There’s no doubt the parks have been busy, even if from just one day sales that weren’t pre-planned way in advance. I would think it would need to be no annual pass reservations available AND the parks were entirely dead feeling to raise issues. Otherwise Disney could just say that based on historical ticketing data they knew XYZ days would be busy with single day guests and they adjusted pass capacity in anticipation of it. Then surprise surprise, the actual attendance on those days were incredibly high and good thing Disney reduced pass reservations. Disney could even point to a continuous challenge to staff the parks and that caused capacity issues beyond Disney’s control. Again, not a lawyer, and I do know there could be some negligence, but it could also just be poor management without intent to defraud pass holders and Disney could have been “trying to do everything in their power” to correct capacity issues. (Posted 100 job postings and actively hiring but no one was applying, etc).

To your last paragraph specifically, this is EXACTLY what they were doing. I visited on a LOT of those days where day of tickets were still being sold and passholder reservations were unavailable and it was VERY empty/slow.

The proof that they were doing this came AFTER the lawsuit was filed and then suddenly, there was ALL this Magic Key Availability, pretty much for the rest of the previously unavailable holiday period.

Disney was absolutely artificially restricting access to MKs while NOT selling out to day tickets. They won't want this to come out in a trial during discovery, so they will work HARD at getting the plaintiff to settle.

 

[PirateBrigade]

The biggest thing would be if internally there was a pattern of artificially reducing availability of passes even when demand wasn’t high. I’m not entirely sure Disney has done that though. There’s no doubt the parks have been busy, even if from just one day sales that weren’t pre-planned way in advance. I would think it would need to be no annual pass reservations available AND the parks were entirely dead feeling to raise issues. Otherwise Disney could just say that based on historical ticketing data they knew XYZ days would be busy with single day guests and they adjusted pass capacity in anticipation of it. Then surprise surprise, the actual attendance on those days were incredibly high and good thing Disney reduced pass reservations. Disney could even point to a continuous challenge to staff the parks and that caused capacity issues beyond Disney’s control. Again, not a lawyer, and I do know there could be some negligence, but it could also just be poor management without intent to defraud pass holders and Disney could have been “trying to do everything in their power” to correct capacity issues. (Posted 100 job postings and actively hiring but no one was applying, etc).

:::Buys Magic Key pass:::
Disney: "Subject to capacity."
Me: "Hey look, there's capacity!"
Disney: "Wrong kind of capacity."

Oxford dictionary: Capacity = "The maximum amount that something can contain."

Me: "Wait, why can't I go in?"
Disney: "There's no capacity."
Me: "Why can they go in **points to ticketholders** entering park"
Disney: Disneyland exists in a multidimensional plane ipso facto physics ticketholders have magic sauce that open a crack in the spacetime continuum thus temporarily allowing capacity when they pass the turnstiles. QED.

Aaaaand...cue lawsuit.

 

[dieumeye]

:::Buys Magic Key pass:::
Disney: "Subject to capacity."
Me: "Hey look, there's capacity!"
Disney: "Wrong kind of capacity."

Oxford dictionary: Capacity = "The maximum amount that something can contain."

Me: "Wait, why can't I go in?"
Disney: "There's no capacity."
Me: "Why can they go in **points to ticketholders** entering park"
Disney: Disneyland exists in a multidimensional plane ipso facto physics ticketholders have magic sauce that open a crack in the spacetime continuum thus temporarily allowing capacity when they pass the turnstiles. QED.

Aaaaand...cue lawsuit.

The funniest comparison I saw was:

:Buys pass to get one free pizza per day as long as supplies last.
:Hi, I’d like my pizza for today.
DisneyPizza: Sorry, we’re out of pizzas, but you can buy one.

 

[PirateBrigade]

The funniest comparison I saw was:

:Buys pass to get one free pizza per day as long as supplies last.
:Hi, I’d like my pizza for today.
DisneyPizza: Sorry, we’re out of pizzas, but you can buy one.

Oh, I like this one a lot better, and mostly because I like pizza.

 

[whiteness]

The funniest comparison I saw was:

:Buys pass to get one free pizza per day as long as supplies last.
:Hi, I’d like my pizza for today.
DisneyPizza: Sorry, we’re out of pizzas, but you can buy one.

I’ve seen giveaways like this, but they would need to clearly state that only X free pizzas would be given per day and maybe only Y per passholder. Businesses are allowed to protect their interests, but they have to be clear and upfront about things.

 

[DLgal]

I’ve seen giveaways like this, but they would need to clearly state that only X free pizzas would be given per day and maybe only Y per passholder. Businesses are allowed to protect their interests, but they have to be clear and upfront about things.

Exactly. Disney needed to add language to the effect of:

"Magic Key reservations will be limited to a percentage of total daily park capacity and are available on a first come, first served basis.A reservation is not guaranteed to be available on any given day."

And they should have never used the phrase "no block out dates." They should have said the Dream Key provided "an opportunity to visit 365 days a year."

 

[Aurora0427]

To your last paragraph specifically, this is EXACTLY what they were doing. I visited on a LOT of those days where day of tickets were still being sold and passholder reservations were unavailable and it was VERY empty/slow.

The proof that they were doing this came AFTER the lawsuit was filed and then suddenly, there was ALL this Magic Key Availability, pretty much for the rest of the previously unavailable holiday period.

Disney was absolutely artificially restricting access to MKs while NOT selling out to day tickets. They won't want this to come out in a trial during discovery, so they will work HARD at getting the plaintiff to settle.

Is this why as a flex pass holder I was able to get reservations basically any day I wanted, including the day of, but now dates are sold out two months in advance?

 

[DLgal]

Is this why as a flex pass holder I was able to get reservations basically any day I wanted, including the day of, but now dates are sold out two months in advance?

Yep

 

[dieumeye]

Magic Key reservations will be limited to a percentage of total daily park capacity

Yes. My only problem with this is the same problem I have with the current system: if they never say what that percentage is on any given day, how do we know what we are actually getting? How do we know if they are releasing a “fair“ amount of reservations in relation to the number of passes sold?

If they advertise a pass as having “365 days” but some of those days there are only, say, 10 reservations available, they might have technically fulfilled their end of the offer, but no one would find that adequate. But we would never know.

Having said all this, the only time I had a problem making reservations was in those early couple months when they clearly were not allocating enough to passes. Since then, it’s been fairly easy to get the dates that I want without too much stalking of the app.

But still, I just want to know what we are actually getting when we buy a pass of this type.

 

[DLgal]

Yes. My only problem with this is the same problem I have with the current system: if they never say what that percentage is on any given day, how do we know what we are actually getting? How do we know if they are releasing a “fair“ amount of reservations in relation to the number of passes sold?

If they advertise a pass as having “365 days” but some of those days there are only, say, 10 reservations available, they might have technically fulfilled their end of the offer, but no one would find that adequate. But we would never know.

Having said all this, the only time I had a problem making reservations was in those early couple months when they clearly were not allocating enough to passes. Since then, it’s been fairly easy to get the dates that I want without too much stalking of the app.

But still, I just want to know what we are actually getting when we buy a pass of this type.

I agree with you in principle, but from simply a LEGAL perspective, this type of language in the fine print would likely have gotten this lawsuit thrown out. Disney's failure to provide *enough* clarity will cost them.

 

[PirateBrigade]

Yes. My only problem with this is the same problem I have with the current system: if they never say what that percentage is on any given day, how do we know what we are actually getting? How do we know if they are releasing a “fair“ amount of reservations in relation to the number of passes sold?

If they advertise a pass as having “365 days” but some of those days there are only, say, 10 reservations available, they might have technically fulfilled their end of the offer, but no one would find that adequate. But we would never know.

Having said all this, the only time I had a problem making reservations was in those early couple months when they clearly were not allocating enough to passes. Since then, it’s been fairly easy to get the dates that I want without too much stalking of the app.

But still, I just want to know what we are actually getting when we buy a pass of this type.

Legally, they don't have to disclose what that magic percentage is each day. I think it just boils down to what seems reasonable to an average person.

If people are averaging 75% success in booking their dates throughout the year, then I don't think there's a case, assuming Disney changes their legally flawed marketing language.

The ultimate balancing act for DLR is what is the lowest acceptable percentage that reduces litigation liability potential to an acceptable level, yet maximizes both the sales of the pass and ancillary revenue generated by a passholder's visit?

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

I moved this thread to the Community Board. We can start a new thread on yhe Disneyland planning oard when we get official news from Disney

 

[DLgal]

Legally, they don't have to disclose what that magic percentage is each day. I think it just boils down to what seems reasonable to an average person.

If people are averaging 75% success in booking their dates throughout the year, then I don't think there's a case, assuming Disney changes their legally flawed marketing language.

The ultimate balancing act for DLR is what is the lowest acceptable percentage that reduces litigation liability potential to an acceptable level, yet maximizes both the sales of the pass and ancillary revenue generated by a passholder's visit?

The lawsuit is looking at a snapshot in time only. What is happening NOW will not impact the outcome of this suit. There is a time period in question which is Sepetmber through October 2021. That's the focus of the lawsuit.