New Class Action Lawsuit Challenges WDW Reservation Requirement for Platinum Passholders

[jcb]

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:

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.

 

[RoseGold]

This is very interesting lawsuit to me, and an obvious one IMO.

This one could really crimp the whole plan and derail APs in general.

I'm not sure they did agree to this when they renewed. It didn't say that the park reservations will prioritize other categories of guest? Right? I was looking for that and didn't see it.

I mean it makes sense they want to prioritize any other category, but I'm not sure they actually said that.

 

[jcb]

I'm not sure they did agree to this when they renewed. It didn't say that the park reservations will prioritize other categories of guest? Right? I was looking for that and didn't see it.

That's an interesting point. I don't read the complaint to seek damages for this - it focuses on the AP system in place in 2020. But I could see someone alleging WDW's failure to disclose this when a person bought an AP is deceptive conduct. That said, other than as noted below,I haven't gone back to see what Disney disclosed.

As of yesterday, Disney's terms for AP's also now include this statement:

A Pass does not guarantee park entry, even on dates when a Pass is not blocked out. Disney allocates daily park reservations among Passes and daily theme park tickets, and therefore makes available to those Passholders eligible to make reservations for a particular day only a portion of the total park reservation capacity. Disney determines the number of park reservations available to Passholders for any date, and Passholders may access only those reservations that Disney makes available to their Pass type. Once all park reservations made available to Passholders for any date are reserved, Passholders may not make reservations for that date using their Pass unless and until reservations become available due to cancellations or Disney makes additional reservations available to Passholders, which Disney is not required to do, but may or may not do from time to time in its discretion. On any given date, park reservations may still be available for theme park tickets even though park reservations allocated to Passes are fully reserved. Passholders, regardless of their Pass type, are not entitled to any or all reservations Disney makes available to others, including, theme park ticket purchasers, on any date, to all reservations up to park capacity on any date, or to any minimum number of reservations on any date.

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/annual-pass-terms-conditions/ I have no idea when this language was added. The webpage just shows that it was updated on 10/18/2022.

Also, there comes a point, especially with WDW, the volume of online discussions and podcasts make a point so thoroughly so it would be hard for someone to allege they were deceived by a failure to disclose. So, to your point, someone who bought or renewed an Incredi-Pass early on might have a valid claim but someone who bought or renewed one (or its current iteration) more recently might not.

 

[RoseGold]

LOL that statement. Ignore that blackout calendar, we black you out whenever we want. That's the point of the park reservations.

 

[_19disnA]

Lots of people always want to file lawsuits likely encouraged by lawyers who have the most $$$ to gain from such efforts over a variety of things. I would imagine if you actually read the fine print Disney had in effect at the time it likely said something like '.......we reserve to the right to modify these agreement due to this/that...............' or some similar wording.

 

[Jrb1979]

IMO this lawsuit and the DL one is going to hurt AP holders more then help. They already aren't fond of AP holders. Doing this IMO is going to give Disney even more reason to not bring them back.

 

[jcb]

IMO this lawsuit and the DL one is going to hurt AP holders more then help. They already aren't fond of AP holders. Doing this IMO is going to give Disney even more reason to not bring them back.

I don't think Disney knows what it wants to do with annual passholders. Again, I haven't kept up too closely but it just looks like, at least at WDW, the approach is entirely reactionary, i.e., there's no plan.

When you read what Chapek and McCarthey say in earnings meetings and so forth, they just keep repeating that guest demand is strong, that they think it is not just attributable to pent up demand, and so they expect it to remain strong. When asked about recession issues, Chapek made a nonsensical reference about reservation system, as if it will be the answer to all future yield issues that may arise. They seem to have forgotten the impact of 2008-2009 on WDW and how AP holders helped mitigate the massive losses from familes that couldn't afford a WDW trip because they had a more pressing concerns about being able to keep their highly mortgaged homes.

Take Chapek's remarks in September 2022:

We keep, obviously, a close eye out on the macroeconomic situation and inflation and recession and all those parameters and very conscious of watching for it.
And by the way, if they ever do hit The Walt Disney Company's businesses, we have the systems now, with like a reservation system inside our park to deal with that. The yield management, it's made for that type of situation.

This explanation is bizarre. A reservation system limits attendance but if or when attendance starts to decline because fewer people can or want to go to WDW, opening up more reservations isn't going to make people want to go. Especially if you have driven off the AP holders. What am I missing?

I'll date myself but I'm reminded of Johnny Fever's conversation with Carlson's mother (who owned WKRP) shen she wanted to change the format to all news:

No. No, I understand. Believe me, this is so deeply warped even I get it.

 

[T.G.I.Friday]

I assume that they are talking about the reservation system not in regards to opening reservations, but more from a staffing perspective. If demand is low, then they will reduce staffing accordingly.

 

[OKW Lover]

Thanks for reporting on this Jack. My sympathies lie with the plaintiffs as I'm in a similar position. I was at the time a Platinum AP holder and today have a 2nd tier AP (this one does have blackout dates). I really dislike the reservation system but I guess I have to live with it now.

 

[RoseGold]

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.

This is an interesting point, because the legacy tickets do have "no blackouts" and not this back-ended blackout they call park reservations, and there's no way to not take it. Seems like the solution would be to refund those ticket for what they paid back then.

 

[DLgal]

This is essentially the same as the Disneyland Magic Key lawsuit. That one is still being worked on in the courts, but it was found to have merit by the judge in the case. Just that decision resulted in the elimination of the Dream Key and new language AND blackout dates for the top tier Key.

Still wondering what the outcome on that case will be.

 

[RoseGold]

This is essentially the same as the Disneyland Magic Key lawsuit. That one is still being worked on in the courts, but it was found to have merit by the judge in the case. Just that decision resulted in the elimination of the Dream Key and new language AND blackout dates for the top tier Key.

Still wondering what the outcome on that case will be.

I mean, that should have been the outcome. If they want to do blackouts, do blackouts from the jump. Don't sell a ticket and then just black everything out anyway, like they did in CA.

 

[GreatLakes]

I'm with the plaintiffs on this one. DL shouldn't base availability on the type of ticket you have. If there are 14,999 people in a park with a capacity for 15,000 (or 14,999 reservations out of 15,000 reserved) the next person to try to book one should get it if they have a pass or ticket eligible for that day. If it is a passholder it is is a passholder. Disney shouldn't be able to say we have room but only for one group of people, not the other.

 

[lowlight]

I just want to point out that there are many legal precedents where terms and conditions you accept during purchase have been overturned in court. Contracts can be rescinded by a judge, even if you’ve signed it, for many reasons.

 

[cakebaker]

IMO this lawsuit and the DL one is going to hurt AP holders more then help. They already aren't fond of AP holders. Doing this IMO is going to give Disney even more reason to not bring them back.

I agree. I think the DLR lawsuit is one reason we've seen them put a stop to sales or restrict them greatly. The only ones who gain on this are the lawyers if they win, as usual. But it's doing nothing but hurting those of us who live out of state and want AP's back. I have mine, but the rest of my family let theirs go so it's a real pain wanting to make multiple trips when only one of us is covered ticket wise. If they didn't limit local passholders, the system would be a mess, but as it is, AP's are the last to be sold out so not sure where the gripe is. And of course those with resort stays should get priority. Spend a fortune and not being able to get into a park? Nope.

 

[DLgal]

I just want to point out that there are many legal precedents where terms and conditions you accept during purchase have been overturned in court. Contracts can be rescinded by a judge, even if you’ve signed it, for many reasons.

This lawsuit, like the one in CA, will likely be pushed forward on the basis of the underlying consumer protection laws in each state. That is where the judge in the CA case decided the suit had merit. The other basis points for the suit were dismissed.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

I am so mad at this lawsuit! I have been carefully watching the Disney World availability calendars since the Disneyland lawsuit was filed. If anything, Disney has mostly prioritized the plain passholder bucket over the ticketed and resort bucket. A small number of days otherwise — like Mother’s Day. They gave bonus days right after that.

Can we opt-out at this early stage? I really do not know the answer to that question — an early opt-out initiated by a potential individual class member. The usual opt-out opportunity is under court directions and a mailer is sent to the class members by the named plaintiff’s attorneys.

If we could have a sign-up sheet that Disney could keep track of, so that if Disney decides to kill the AP program for all class litigants, they can continue it for those of us who opted out early.

I know. There probably is no official way to do it this early. These plaintiffs do not speak for me. That’s for sure! I think they are jeopardizing the AP program as we know it.

 

[HashberryOTG]

I think the defense will be a couple of things.

Full reservations are not a "blackout". Watch those "full" days, and you can often find what you want opens up. They would have always had the disclaimer that admittance is not guaranteed, because of emergencies like hurricanes. You can sue over not getting your $ worth during a closure all you like, it's not going to get you anywhere if the park isn't open. I know that isn't the case here, but that's why the disclaimer would have existed even then.

You are also not guaranteed admission into the park of your choice at the time of your choosing. Said park could actually be full (again, not the situation here, but you get the point). They won't have an argument at all if they were able to get into other parks. AP holders can also park hop. By this logic, there is also nothing wrong with limiting reservations, as, if I recall, the AP mentions nothing of reservations except that you need them. However, in keeping with the above, it won't say you're guaranteed a reservation to any park at any time within 'x' amount of days of travel.

Please note, this is just my opinion. I also find some of the restrictions and reservations annoying at times. But I'm not so sure the legal standing on this case will get them very far.

 

[shoegal9]

I am so mad at this lawsuit! I have been carefully watching the Disney World availability calendars since the Disneyland lawsuit was filed. If anything, Disney has mostly prioritized the plain passholder bucket over the ticketed and resort bucket. A small number of days otherwise — like Mother’s Day. They gave bonus days right after that.

Can we opt-out at this early stage? I really do not know the answer to that question — an early opt-out initiated by a potential individual class member. The usual opt-out opportunity is under court directions and a mailer is sent to the class members by the named plaintiff p’s attorneys.

If we could have a sign-up sheet that Disney could keep track of, so that if Disney decides to kill the AP program for all class litigants, they can continue it for those of us who opted out early.

I know. There probably is no official way to do it this early. These plaintiffs do not speak for me. That’s for sure! I think they are jeopardizing the AP program as we know it.

I feel the same way.

Do they really think this will get Disney to do away with park reservations? No. They're more likely to just not have APs anymore. Which ROYALLY screws me over.

Thanks for your selfish greed EK & MP. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[lowlight]

I feel the same way.

Do they really think this will get Disney to do away with park reservations? No. They're more likely to just not have APs anymore. Which ROYALLY screws me over.

Thanks for your selfish greed EK & MP. This is why we can't have nice things.

That's a hot take. Greedy corporation does something greedy and possibly not legal, gets sued, and people are like "please, the corporation will punish us more if we point out their misdoings!'.