Originally Posted by
lexdevil
That's going further than Marriott has to. It does more than make you whole, because it provides you with status beyond the trip in question. To make you whole, Marriott only needs to give you 500 points (or cheese and 375 ml of crappy wine) and give you 25% more MR points for your stay (the difference between the gold and plat point bonuses). These are the only differences between gold and plat status.
You are correct that Marriott could so something else us whole; they could honor Platinum status for any reservation made where we were reliant on the false assumption. Determining this, however, could be complex, which is why I suggested the simpler method of simply honoring Platinum for the year - the maximum possible period of detrimental reliance. Marriott would need only honor this for anyone who actually complained, for anyone who didn't notice nor act nor care couldn't have been harmed, and presumably anyone who did would complain. Technically, the differences between Gold and Plat you noted aren't the only ones - what matters is the customer's reliance on their perception of what they were given. For example, if I wouldn't have booked my trip without Platinum status because it wouldn't have impressed my wife as much with the points/wine but Gold status, then the same detrimental reliance issue arises. (Whether this extreme example would be found reasonable in court is another issue. It may not - I'm just illustrating a technicality.)
Originally Posted by
tvetter01
If you stay that often and have the ability to direct a large number of nights to Marriott at will, just ask for a Platinum challenge, then book enough nights to meet it.
If you had stayed zero nights last year and been erroneously bumped to platinum for a couple of days, would you feel like you were entitled to keep the status? I doubt it, and this is the same concept.
Also, what I think a ton of people that want their mistakenly elevated status back are missing is that if everyone has it, it isn't status. If they hadn't fixed the mistake, your newfound elevation in status would result in very limited room upgrades, incredibly crowded lounges, and a significant reduction in the recognition of status by Marriott employees.
Good idea regarding the challenge.
As for the rest, my response is the same as above - the issue at hand is what the customer reasonably relied upon, not what they would have actually received.
Originally Posted by
socrates
I think you're forgetting the "common man theory"....as such there was no official communication awarding status - folks logged in and saw it (the internet brings additional twists to this) but someone with a decent knowledge of MR which most here on FT do have, would reasonably assume after only staying 25 nights did not earn Platinum status which requires 75 and is common knowledge
The customer must indeed be aware of the false information to be able to reasonably rely on it to his detriment. However, posting the information online within his account is certainly a form of communication; the question is whether the customer saw this communication and took action because of it. I cannot speak for others, but I took the reasonable assumption that my flurry of activity at the end of 2009 was intense enough to qualify me for the Platinum Challenge, even though I hadn't requested it (i.e., that they bumped me because they saw that I was displaying a pattern consistent with someone who would earn Platinum if it continued).