"A federal judge has allowed a Disneyland passholder lawsuit to move forward that claims the Anaheim theme park misled and deceived its most loyal fans by artificially limiting capacity and restricting reservations, according to court documents.
The complaint filed by Disneyland Magic Key annual passholder Jenale Nielsen of Santa Clara County has been working its way through the court process since November 2021.
Disney sought to have the case dismissed in early March and a Central District of California judge issued a ruling in early April dismissing four of Nielsen’s six allegations in the suit but allowing the other two to move forward. Disney lawyers answered the complaint in late April and Nielsen’s attorneys filed an amended complaint on May 10.
Disney denies each and every allegation and assertion in the complaint, according to the company’s response to the court filing.
Disneyland has been clear about the terms of the Magic Key product and continues to vigorously defend its position as the case proceeds, according to Disneyland officials.
The lawsuit alleges that Nielsen purchased a $1,399 Disneyland Dream Key annual pass with no blockout dates in September 2021, but was unable to make theme park reservations for certain dates in November 2021.
Nielsen’s attorneys are seeking to have the case certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court — a step that has not yet happened.
The $5 million suit filed against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts on behalf of all Magic Key annual passholders alleges Disneyland relegated them to “second class” ticket holders by artificially limiting Magic Key reservations and the number of passholders that can visit on any given day.
United States District Court Judge David Carter denied Disney’s motion to dismiss the Magic Key annual passholder case as it relates to breach of contract and the California consumer protection act. Carter granted Disney’s dismissal motions relating to claims of false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, legal disclosure and unfair competition.
“The court finds that plaintiff has adequately pled facts supporting how a reasonable consumer may be deceived by the advertisement, which states ‘no blockout dates.’” Carter wrote in his ruling. “Plaintiff argues that ordinary consumers generally understand blockout dates to be ‘dates when tickets, credits, passes or rewards cannot be used.’”
The California consumer protections portion of the case will likely hinge upon whether a Disneyland Dream Key annual pass constitutes a good or service as Nielsen’s lawyers contend or a temporary license as Disney contends. Another key contention: The meaning of “blockout dates” and what that definition includes and excludes for passholders and Disneyland.
“Plaintiff alleges that the term ‘no blockout dates’ is not defined in the advertisement but that she understood the term to mean that Dream Key Pass holders would not be blocked from making theme park reservations ‘whenever Disney was offering park reservations for entrance to the theme parks,’” according to the complaint. “She also understood the advertisement’s statement that ‘park reservations are subject to availability and are not guaranteed for any specific dates or park’ to mean that ‘if park reservations were available and being offered to the public, Dream Key holders could use their passes to make reservations for entry to the parks.’”
In answering the complaint, Disney admits the phrase “blockout date” is not defined, but denies the phrase “no blockout dates” can be reasonably understood to mean Dream Key passholders can make reservations whenever Disneyland or Disney California Adventure offer theme park reservations.
In addition, Disney admits it promised there would be no blockout dates for Dream Key pass holders, but denies Disneyland blocked out dates to Dream Key pass holders.
Disney has taken the position that Disneyland has the power to artificially limit theme park reservations and decide when to make Dream Key passholder reservations available or unavailable, according to the response from Nielsen’s attorneys."
“Disney appears to be limiting the number of reservations available to Dream Key pass holders on any given day in order to maximize the number of single day and other passes that Disney can sell,” according to the response from Nielsen’s attorneys. “This practice directly contradicts Disney’s advertised promise that the Dream Key would not be subject to blockout dates.”
United States District Court Judge David Carter denied Disney’s motion to dismiss the Magic Key annual passholder case.
www.ocregister.com
