ijgordon

Well then the class action lawyers shouldn't be far behind!

joe_miami

$20,000,000 in fees for them and a coupon for $5 off in-flight WiFi for those shut down. Haha.

mvoight

To clarify, you did not get your AAdvantage account closed, correct?

lowfareair

I do find it funny that AA is worried about people abusing the rewards program, yet the T&Cs also state "To the full extent allowed by law, these Terms and Conditions disclaim any duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as any implied contractual terms or obligations."

AA: "You better operate in good faith and fair dealing, although we definitely won't!"

On a slightly separate note, would a lawyer be able to translate the 'these Terms and Conditions disclaim any... implied contractual terms'? I'm probably missing something here, but it sounds like anyone shutdown for a reason not stated in the T&Cs (or related document they agreed to) could point to this as AA is implying contractual terms. In other words, shutdown for signing up your cat = legit as you can't sign up pets. Shutdown for too many signup bonuses through mailers for real people that didn't explicitly state non-transferable = more of a grey area, as that would be an implied contractual term.

mvoight

What change are you referring to that affected you in a 60 day period you allege they changed the rules without advance notice.?
Your right to "game" AA might be OK for you, but that isn't going to stand up as a valid defense when they take your miles, stances, and/or cancel your award bookings

mvoight

Which "shutdown" do you feel is not covered in the contract terms? Of course, feel free and sue..........That's entirely up to you

Adelphos

No closure. Account is in good standing, able to book trips, etc.

lowfareair

I am not a part of this locked/shutdown account thing, but I am very intrigued by it, so I don't think I can sue based on intrigue

The part I was saying is that the form letters are accusing people of abuse, but if there is not a specific term that the person violated, I think AA would be in a tough spot from a legal standpoint to shut someone down due to it as they state there are no implied terms. The example I was giving is if someone gets shut down for using mailers given to them by friends/family, if the mailers do not explicitly say non-transferable, AA may be in the wrong for shutting down based on an 'implied contract term'.

If the person got mailers through creating fake AA accounts, that's one thing, but if they just received a lot of bonuses but didn't violate any terms, AA can point to abuse, but I think that would be murky at best, especially given that they are not trying to skirt any rules, but are actually identifying themselves as the same exact person every time and Citi keeps approving them, every time.

richarddd

They appear to be referring the NW Airlines v Ginsberg, a Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that people can't sue airlines for violating various traditional implied contract terms, including good faith and fair dealing. AA is making that explicit in its T&Cs.

Ginsberg combined with AA's T&Cs (and likely those of every other airline) pretty much allow them to do whatever they want regarding FF programs.

lowfareair

Ah okay, that makes sense. In this case though, does the word 'abuse' provide enough cover for them if someone didn't violate any of the other T&Cs? Seems like that could be a PR issue for them if they have no definition of abuse, especially if the punishment is not merely refusing to let people rack up more miles, but cancelling trips (even mid-reservation) and revoking already earned miles.

richarddd

One relevant provision is "Your ticket is not valid when: ... We find that the ticket was bought using an exploitative practice" That's rather broad.

I'd think they would have a PR problem if they are cancelling accounts of people whose only sin is getting bonuses without doing anything untoward and wouldn't have a PR problem if they cancelling people who signed up their pets for AAdvantage accounts or racked up hundreds of thousands of miles. Look at the various comment threads here and on blogs. OMAAT for example.

Global321

That was a relatively narrow and specific ruling. Wiley Rein gives a great summary. Specifically,the Court refused to hold that all claims of breach of an implied covenant, no matter the law of the jurisdiction governing the contract, are preempted by the ADA and the Court pointed out that the U.S. Department of Transportation offers protection through its authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry and also to investigate complaints that are specific to frequent flier programs.

Having said that, in general, it is AA's program, AA's rules, until someone goes to court and wins.

Often1

On the contrary, they have a PR bonanza. The vast majority of AA's target demographic would likely say that shutting down people who apply for multiples of the same CC in order to obtain a "bonus" is both justified and good for them.

lowfareair

It's a matter of people here thinking it isn't bad because the shutdowns will indirectly benefit them. I think many here would think differently if, back when mileage runs were a much bigger thing, AA shut down AAdvantage accounts and cancelling all future award trips for mileage runners because they were 'abusing' the rules using 'exploitative' practices.

lds89

I'm sorry, but how would mileage runs be in a gray area? The multiple bonus thing is definitely in a gray area for most cases.

Did AA go too far? Possibly, but I'll reserve my judgment until more facts come out about where they drew the line in the sand. Based on the JonNYC twitter feed looks like there'll be a major publication doing a story on it and we'll learn more.

No doubt in my mind creation of fictitious AA accounts and bartering codes goes over the line. And the vast majority of the general public would think that getting CCs several times a year to get bonuses would seem crazy / be beyond the spirit of the welcome bonus concept (even if in a gray area based on terms). But to compare this to mileage running seems absolutely crazy. That was people going on paid trips (and taking those trips) to accrue miles based on the explicit rules of the program. A fairer comparison would be if there was a way to mileage run without actually taking the flights, or changing routing and getting ORC repeatedly even though you didn't actually fly the route or something