Originally Posted by
fumje
For me, the new receipt seems to have a get-out-of-jail footnote for UA that says 1K membership needed, even if the ticket includes only a passenger without 1K status.
Sorry, no.
Here's a link to a previous thread when this came up:
Is an "eTicket Itinerary and Receipt" a legally binding document?
(This is the same thread when I realized that UA had changed their receipt in a format that is not compliant with the regulation). You can find the actual text in the last couple of posts.
The problem is, the correct number
isn't on the receipt. That's illegal, even though the footnote is present to indicate that the table shouldn't apply.