Wow.

The asterisk is sufficiently small that I literally didn't see it.

Relatedly, I never imagined that the asterisk could lead to text that directly contradicts the words that immediately follow the asterisk. For example, the FTC tells advertisers: "Nor can advertisers use fine print to contradict other statements in an ad." Here, the big print says "oneworld Ruby and Sapphire members, and companions traveling in the same reservation." Then the asterisk fine print says not oneworld companions. That's exactly what the "fine print cannot contradict big print" principle disallows. I don't know whether DOT has considered this question, but DOT often follows FTC principles as to unfair/deceptive among other subjects.

Anyone interested could look at https://www.alaskaair.com/content/tr...ptions#waivers . Screenshot in relevant part:



Also, there's the matter of the exact wording of the fine print. It says: "oneworld elite level members do not receive companion baggage benefits." But of course the oneworld member doesn't get the companion's benefits. It is the companion who gets the companion's baggage benefits For example, if the companion doesn't travel (sick, change of plans, etc.), the oneworld member cannot check the additional bags that the companion could have checked. No no no, the companion must be present to check the bag and claim the benefit. At least that's one natural, literal, appropriate way to read the read the footnote. If Alaska truly meant that oneworld members' companions don't get any baggage benefits at all, surely Alaska shouldn't have written "oneworld Ruby and Sapphire members*, and companions traveling in the same reservation" in the big print, because once it writes that, it's hard to get to the opposite result no matter what the fine print says.