mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with his logic. The plantiff's angle is clear in their complaint. They hinged everything on the "no blockout dates" claim. The Dream pass is the only pass that made that claim. Their claim is entirely based on the interpretation of what "blockout dates" and "subject to availability" means. The focus on picking the Dream Pass BECAUSE of the "no blockout date" claim is central to her buying decision and claim to harm. Expanding it to all passes undermines these points.
In the complaint the plantiff paints any lack of availability as being 'blocked out' -- this is to tie the contention to the 'no blockout dates' claims. For instance:
"Specifically, on or about October 19, 2021, Ms. Nielsen attempted to use herDream Key to obtain an admission ticket to Disneyland in November 2021. The Disney website informed her that, for Dream Key pass holders, a total of seventeen days in November, including all weekend days, had been blocked out." (emphasis added)
Note they make the assertion that Dream Keys has been BLOCKED OUT. Not "ran out" or "no more capacity" -- These are very intentional wording choices to try to support the claim that Disney's claim was misleading because they claim Disney is blocking those dates instead of lack of availability.
Her entire case is based on that "no blockout dates" claim and it's interpretation... not the concept of reservations running out... even tho the latter is what Disney would argue.
Nah - people can put away the conspiracy theories. Disney just tried to have their cake and eat it to. To be coy with their language to try to avoid being called out about not having a no blockout pass anymore.. while still keeping the faucet controls to limit the passes' impact. The intent was clear as soon as people recognized the pool for passes was different. But under California's generous consumer protection laws... it becomes an argument what is a reasonable interpretation of the language and that is something subjective Disney could not really control. (and something Disney easily corrected afterwards).
But once it's a class action, it benefits Disney in that in one swoop it can gather up all these complaints and flush them together. They had already moved on... this is just a loose end for them to clean up.
The plantiffs are the losers here IMO... because it would have been impossible for them to really quantify how much damage the individuals would have faced (how many days did you try to goto, but couldn't due to lack of availability).. and Disney has a strong argument where it shows 'well you did use the pass, so you did get value from it' -- so it's not like they can easily say "Give me my $1399 back". So they settle for some pittance amount per claimant.
I'd be curious if the lawyers sought out the plantiff, or if she found them shopping. Because the 2.7 mil pot for lawyer fees is really the only one getting a significant amount. The plantiff gets 5k for fighting this for over a year? lol
That makes sense. Probably would have helped if I read the plaintiffs complaint.
Yeah big waste of time. Dream Key APs lost as now the pass isn’t available anymore. Although you can argue that was probably coming anyway.