They do give it "in general terms". The only line in the T&Cs that matters is this one:

They are the house. We play by their rules. Period. They keep it general so that they don't have to chase down and write out exhaustively every single detail of every single fraud scheme people can think of. Because if they did that, then they're implying that anything outside of those is fair game, and thus incentivizing people to cook up more wacky schemes.

I'm not being pedantic; that's how all these programs work. They have sole discretion. I'm not aware of any case in which a court has sided against the companies in frequent flyer/hotel programs.

The people begging for clarification, I guess that's your prerogative. I doubt we're gonna get it. I'd be highly surprised if Hilton legal ever let the ambassador within a mile of this thread.

I've done legitimate points transfers/pooling and have never had so much as a hiccup. One data point does not a proof make, but that works in the other direction as well. The three data points we have are 1) an ambiguous story in Polish that was never responded to, 2) someone who seemed to be a longtime troublemaker that Hilton finally disposed of, and 3) what appears to be an error in a fraud detection algorithm that was quickly recognized, corrected, apologized for, and compensated.

If people want to work themselves up into a lather, then they can, but I'm not losing any sleep over here.



Yerp.

And then people wonder why they get shut down.