Citations?

2YN75483 is the highest profile without any sort of an NDA that I know of.

I actually acknowledged that some of the facts were altered to make it fit into a meaningful hypo. The underlying legal doctrines are all the same. Of course there are unresolved factual questions. Or facts that Matthew will characterize differently than others. But the goal is to identify the relevant legal issues.

A court ruling doesn't have a NDA. That would violate the first amendment.

He posted back in ~Nov that after the family Christmas holiday in Germany, they were considering going to Israel or Jordan prior to returning to the US. Something had come up back home to where they weren't going to have time for an extended trip but had not yet booked the return flights. The LX F award was booked only after this sudden "availability" became known. In fact he stated that they had to return to the US one day earlier than planned in order to find bookable LX F awards.

So in other words, had this "opportunity" (for lack of a better word) not popped up, he wouldn't otherwise be flying this LX F flight. Yet now he is claiming that this was his only viable option for the Germany-US return flight.

Could be an interesting legal case if it goes forward. With Air Canada's mileage program spun off to a separate Canadian entity, where would you commence court proceedings? I don't have any miles with them, but could they have something in their terms of service that any litigation must be in Canada? I kind of wish it would go forward just to see the jurisdiction issue addressed.

I think approaching this from the other side of the dispute would be far more interesting (since Matt will probably blog about this, and I doubt LX will plead their cases publicly).

My bad. I should have used 'cases' rather then rulings.

So to book an award you have to demonstrate that you'd otherwise buy a ticket? I take he intended to travel on this route (or close enough) and the availability made him commit to it. By the time the dust settled, other options may not have been on the table, so why does he have to settle for less?

You are missing the purpose of those claims.
​​​

Seriously-a British 2013 County Court Case? How about a U.S. or Canadian citation?

An NDA would only be in a Settlement and, given the loquacious nature of this blogger, I doubt it would last long.

Appropriate forum is a key starting point here as is the relevance of spending thousands of $$ on a First Class ticket for a family of three when there are obviously much cheaper yet comfortable alternative means of getting from point A to point B. Arguing that you needed a 3 suitcase luggage allowance as opposed to 2 won't cut it. Much cheaper to just spend the $$ for excess baggage.

I imagine Aeroplan's lawyers are getting a huge chuckle out of this.

Would you like fries with that?
Was it not ruled by a judge? Also, was it not ruled against the parent company of LX?

I'd get a huge chuckle seeing Aeroplan or LX lawyers argue their products and services can be bought cheaper or easily substituted.

Have you ever read an antitrust pleading? They do all the time.

Matt has been pleading his case publicly. He has a law degree. Let him explain why he would win in light of the doctrines of mutual mistake, unclean hands, failure to mitigate, and preemption, as well as the actual terms of the contract he has with Aeroplan. I will try and post a thorough analysis some time in the next few weeks, but that will take me far longer than the 10 minutes it took me to type up the hypo.

That's not at all what I said. I was merely responding to your questioning of the evidence for this...

...with the blogger's statements that show why he wasn't intending to fly LX F until the mistake availability arose...nothing more than that. Not sure why you're putting other words in my mouth.

I'm not missing the purpose of asserting that his only option to return home was on LX F, just expressing my opinion that it's a ridiculous statement to make.

I have never read (or heard) an antitrust pleading where the airline in question depreciates their first class product. As it would make quite an entertaining material in my opinion, please do share if you have an example.

Because the initial statement made it seem like flying LX on an award was the end game.

Is it? Even though they may not apply to his case, the European laws that LX theoretically should follow require recommendation in comparable conditions so I don't find that ridiculous.

Not sure why I'm continuing to engage, but you're moving the goalposts. You said an airline wouldn't admit in court that there is a comparable substitute for its product (which would be the standard for a failure to mitigate). They do so all the time. Perhaps you should join Matthew's legal team.

He's presenting this as a fight with Aeroplan, not LX. And it isn't about re-accommodation, it's about his assertions that this was his "only option" for booking a flight back to LAX and that he "never intended to fly any other way home". It's just his preferred option and his own earlier blog posts document that he was in fact planning to fly home through other means before this error arose - so the statement that he never intended to fly any other way home is inaccurate. I understand he thinks he's setting up his baseline for reimbursement, but he should simply stick to that basic rationale, which is at least honest, and not rewrite history and come up with goofy rationale (e.g., my little one can only travel in an F suite) that supposedly forced him to book this LX F cash ticket.