Tchiowa

No, they ruled that a mistake is not false advertising. False advertising requires intent.

pinniped

You really think the DOT is going to hold the airlines accountable? You really think they're going to ask the airlines to somehow "prove" it was a mistake? And there's no indication at all (yet) that the DOT will ever require the airlines to produce documentation showing that each claim of a mistake is a unique, new type of defect that could not have been foreseen through root cause analyses of prior mistakes.

How? This ruling is 100% in favor of the cartel and against the consumers. It's basically a free "out" for the airlines. There's no arbitration process or ability for the consumer to challenge the root cause analysis of the alleged "mistake".

kop84

The retail analogy is flawed.

If I see a price at Target and it rings higher, they give me the sale price and someone takes down the sign and that's that, maybe two other people saw it before it was corrected.

I can't go on Facebook/Twitter and tell all of my friends that Target has XYZ product miss-priced head down here right now!

And it's always a case of a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone. Its why we have most of the laws we have!

pinniped

I agree that retail analogies are always a bit flawed. But...why couldn't you tell your friends when you see a great deal at Target? Aren't there entire websites dedicated to this? Whenever I'm looking for some sort of new gadget, I usually check out Slickdeals. They post all sorts of crazy stuff there (including FREE stuff), and when the retailer "takes down the sign" (proverbially speaking), the thread gets noted as "CLOSED".

There are occasionally threads where the discussions devolves into whether a given deal was an error, whether it didn't fulfill all of the accepted orders, etc. To date, I've thankfully never been personally involved in one of those.

t325

I think a more accurate retail analogy is the posted sign on a product is the $1200, the correct price, but due to an error in the POS system, it rings up at $120, and maybe it's a nationwide screw up, someone left off a 0. So word does get out on social media and people flock to the stores before Target has a chance to update the POS or have stores pull the product from shelves.

Should Target demand that people who managed to buy that product while it was incorrectly ringing up at $120 return it or pay the difference?

Tchiowa

Yes, I think the DOT will. Even if the mistake was a repeated mistake that could have been fixed, it's still a mistake. Intent is the operative word.

First, given that there is no cartel the logic is missing a bit. Second, prior to this ruling, the airlines could have been forced to honor a clear and obvious mistake (like the Denmark First Class fare). Completely unfair.

The "cause" of the mistake is not relevant. The fact that it is a "mistake" is what is relevant. If the airline intentionally posts a fare they have to live with it. But if it is not posted intentionally the airline can remove it. Burden of proof is on the airline.

Again, mixing service and products. If Target catches it before the consumer leaves with the product, of course they can require them to pay the difference. If the airline catches it before the consumer takes the flight, of course they can require them to pay the difference.

nkedel

In plenty of other industries, businesses have to honor advertised or offered prices or promotions even if they were not offered intentionally -- there's usually some formal and obvious retraction process or signs posted clearly about mistaken promotions.

Removing or revoking a fare listing it is different from revoking tickets sold under it; they can already (in most cases) change fares at any time for any reason or none.

Unless there was fraud involved, once they've accepted payment and closed the transaction, they can't -- at least in California; other state shopkeeper laws may differ.

(Note also that this prevents stores like Fry's from putting additional conditions after the sale, and why -- except at CostCo and other club stores where they can revoke your membership -- you are free to walk around receipt-check lines going out of the store. Once they've accepted your money and handed you a receipt to prove you've paid, the goods are yours.)

At a minimum, they'd have to offer the alternative of a refund of the mistake amount.

Further, if the timing of catching a mistake is unlimited up to "before the consumer takes a flight" this can be actively harmful to consumers: for example, if the person paid for the "mistake" fare in good faith, and paid for other non-refundable travel around it.

Tchiowa

Not so. If they can prove that the price advertised was a clear error and not intended they can get out of it. Transposing digits on a price, for example. If they can show that they sent the price of $91 to the typesetter and he typed in $19 then they are not obligated to honor the $19 price.

I live in California. I spent years working retail in California as a kid. There are other reasons that a sale can be cancelled. If, for example, you order something on line at a mistake fare (on Amazon, for example) if they discover the computer error that caused it they can reverse the sale and refund your money before shipping the item to you.

Yes. Cancel the fare and refund the money.

If they don't catch the mistake in a day or so after people have purchased the fare then it could be argued it's not a mistake.

In the meantime, you hit the nail on the head with your use of "good faith". Of the thousands and thousands of people who bought the DKK $5 first class fare, you can count the number of people who bought it "in good faith" on the fingers of one fist.

nkedel

Yes, up to a point -- there's a reason that stores will post advertising errors of that sort clearly, often at the entrance.

Such as?
(Also, mind you that plenty of retailers will blatantly ignore the law on posted prices unless actively called on it.)

They're technically not supposed to charge you for the sale until right before it ships, period, and they can get in some trouble if they complete a charge on a card early (as opposed to merely running the approval.)

Moreover, that's different from an in-person retail transaction in that the goods are still in their possession until they're handed over to the carrier for delivery.

Well, at least you're not THAT strongly anti-consumer...

But what if they make another mistake in not noticing the first mistake?

Probably very few, and while I have very little sympathy for big corporations who misuse their IT systems and lose money as a result, I have also got relatively little sympathy when it is so obvious a case.

OTOH, there are a lot of things that may or may not be mistake fares that could very well be called that retroactively and which are purchased in good faith; a couple of years ago I found a routing on ITA SFO-(something)-CDG-(something)-LAX-HKG-BKK-HKG-SFO for the same fare as the SFO-LAX-HKG-BKK-HKG-SFO (slightly more once taxes were added, but less than $150 extra for 12,000 EQM and RDM and just under 24 hours in Paris). Needless to say, I booked it. Was this a mistake? Just a weird routing they happened to allow? No idea.

nrr

If I purchase a RT ticket AAA-BBB-AAA 6 months in advance and pay (say) $200 [ALL the airlines flying that route are charging the same price]. 3 months later these same airlines realize they could now charge $1000 for the same route--so they claim MISTAKE FARE; I doubt the DOT would accede to this. But instead of 3 months, it is 3 days would this be OK with DOT?
There has to be a stated time frame for airlines to invoke MISTAKE: a day or two at the most.

lloydah

[QUOTE=Tchiowa;24841375]Not so. If they can prove that the price advertised was a clear error and not intended they can get out of it. Transposing digits on a price, for example. If they can show that they sent the price of $91 to the typesetter and he typed in $19 then they are not obligated to honor the $19 price.


Absolutely, but this is where the problem lies. In a store they can, at the till, recognise it as being a mistake and not honour the sale. Once the money has been handed over though, it becomes a done deal.

I think we all agree that there have to be some rules here but it does seem to me that the DOT rules just don't make it clear cut. The time element is missing and that, to my mind, is one of the most important factors.

pinniped

No, the first repeat is a conscious decision to accept risk. It is intentional at that point. It's a cost-benefit decision in the normal world.

Ok, we'll wink at each other and call it a noncartel-that-kinda-looks-and-acts-like-a-cartel for this purpose, but how is honoring this Denmark fare somehow "unfair"? Was the airline hacked? Were the people who booked the fare somehow connected to an employee who made the fare available to them against company policy?

Actually, it's highly relevant. Only through a detailed root-cause analysis can you determine if you have a legitimate, new defect (as opposed to a repeat of some existing defect that you've consciously chosen to accept in the production environment with its known risks).

Except for it won't be. They'll be able to say "oopsie" and break their contracts with their customers, and then customers will have to fight for any recourse or proof of a mistake, and we all know that will go nowhere.

If the DOT puts in a rigorous review process that must be completed before it cancels tickets - one with an RCA review, a burden on the airline proving they haven't simply ignored earlier problems, and one that allows input from the public - then I'll eat my words.

This is where the retail analogies are flawed, and I hope that no matter whose side we're arguing for we can agree on that. There's no ambiguity as to when a retail sale is truly completed: it's when you buy the item and walk out the front door with it. With an airline ticket it's a little greyer: clearly the airlines are saying it's not until you fly, whereas the consumers are saying it's when the ticket is issued.

Since the rest of the rules and regulations around airline tickets are focused on the point in time that it's ticketed, I tend to side with the consumers here. I have a maximum 24 hours to say "oopsie, I made a mistake" on some ticket purchases. Reasonably fair play by a regulatory group *not* totally beholden to the industry would be to allow them the same 24 hours, max.

No disagreement on courtesy holds. If you haven't ticketed, then yeah, they can obviously cancel the hold. They don't even need to declare a mistake to do that...

*shrug* I've bought $5 flights before "in good faith" (not that "good faith" is remotely relevant here). I don't know anything about the Denmark thing...just that this isn't always a "mistake".

+1. Some sort of time limit is perhaps the best happy medium that consumers can realistically hope for. I find an attractive airfare, I book it, I wait 24 hours, and then I know it stands and I can book the rest of my trip. Not perfect, but...I'd live with it.

nkedel

Indeed; if this were a LCC with any kind of history of crazy-low promotional fares, it might well have been plausible.

For that matter, the recent history of certain airlines pushing the base fares ridiculously low and then adding absurd levels of fuel surcharge muddies the matter. That sort of thing is exactly why before-surcharges advertising should never be allowed again.

That said, these threads always bring out people who seem to want to argue for the airlines' positions and against common-sense, consumer-friendly positions.

Tchiowa

That said, these threads always bring out people who seem to want to argue for the consumer-friendly positions and against common-sense positions.

CMK10

I agree with the decision, digging up my first year Contracts notes I find this:

Mistake (Mutual/Unilateral):
Belief not in accord with the facts when the party has complied with the terms but has entered into the contract because of a mistake. One party wants to rescind.

Unilateral Mistake Test:
Party must also show enforcement is oppressive or unconscionable and rescission will impose no hardship on other party, OR other party knew or had reason to know of the mistake

Seems to me that based on that, the rule makes sense. And with the game changing via social media and bloggers who put in every post "don't call the airline, make sure you book now", I guess this was inevitable.