FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   TravelBuzz (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz-176/)
-   -   Were you a victim ? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travelbuzz/1899837-were-you-victim.html)

Srisarin Mar 20, 18 11:37 pm

Were you a victim ?
 
Class Action filed against, among others, Marriott

https://www.eturbonews.com/180714/co...tt-and-wyndham

mahasamatman Mar 20, 18 11:56 pm

Until the lawsuit is settled, nobody is a victim.

The way this is described, it's appears to be a very stupid attempt for some class-action attornies to get millions of undeserved dollars. They're claiming when someone specifically searches for a given brand, the fact that other brands don't show up is somehow a problem? Personally, I'd be pissed if other brands did show up, because that's not what I searched for.

I hode these lawyers get hit with massive court fees.

Srisarin Mar 21, 18 1:07 am

Any Plaintiff in a Civil Suit, whether individually or as a member of a “class” (therefore not including DEC actions) is alleging that they were the “victim” of the Defendants wrongful acts and are demanding financial compensation


Originally Posted by mahasamatman (Post 29549182)
Until the lawsuit is settled, nobody is a victim.


garykung Mar 21, 18 1:26 am

This lawsuit will not survive FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.

Assuming all the allegations are true, there is no direct allegation saying that consumers are harmed because of the agreements. Just because the hotels have been engaging the alleged practice, it does not mean consumers are harmed by the agreements.

In that case, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.

getagb Mar 21, 18 6:36 am


Originally Posted by garykung (Post 29549368)
This lawsuit will not survive FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.

Assuming all the allegations are true, there is no direct allegation saying that consumers are harmed because of the agreements. Just because the hotels have been engaging the alleged practice, it does not mean consumers are harmed by the agreements.

In that case, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.

Plaintiffs allege consumers are harmed by higher prices than would exist without this agreement.

EricH Mar 21, 18 6:47 am

CNN keeps telling me that targeted advertising is bad. Now targeted nonadvertising is also bad.

CPRich Mar 21, 18 9:25 am


Originally Posted by Srisarin (Post 29549336)
Any Plaintiff in a Civil Suit, whether individually or as a member of a “class” (therefore not including DEC actions) is alleging that they were the “victim” of the Defendants wrongful acts and are demanding financial compensation

Alleging that they are a victim does not make them a victim.

No more than filing a lawsuit "uncovers" an anti-trust scheme, as claimed in the (poorly written) article.

Proudelitist Mar 21, 18 10:53 am


Originally Posted by EricH (Post 29550024)
CNN keeps telling me that targeted advertising is bad. Now targeted nonadvertising is also bad.

To be clear, it is bad when the information they use to target you was illegally obtained without your knowledge or consent. Not bad in and of itself.

LondonElite Mar 21, 18 2:41 pm

Awesome title!

OskiBear Mar 21, 18 7:15 pm

Is it ironic or amusing that while reading this, all I had were targeted ads for hotels that I've recently searched?

Srisarin Mar 21, 18 7:19 pm

Unless they were a victim (a damaged party) they would be bounced out of Court for “lack of standing”


Originally Posted by CPRich (Post 29550609)
Alleging that they are a victim does not make them a victim.


garykung Mar 21, 18 7:31 pm


Originally Posted by getagb (Post 29549996)
Plaintiffs allege consumers are harmed by higher prices than would exist without this agreement.

To make this simple - I believe the lawyer failed to plead causation between the agreement and the alleged damages.

Specifically, taking the allegations as true, the lawyers need to prove that the said agreements actually impacted the hotel prices, which I don't see the nexus.

Perhaps someone sees that?

CPRich Mar 21, 18 7:44 pm


Originally Posted by Proudelitist (Post 29550921)
To be clear, it is bad when the information they use to target you was illegally obtained without your knowledge or consent. Not bad in and of itself.

Which has nothing to do with this suit.

CPRich Mar 21, 18 7:49 pm


Originally Posted by Srisarin (Post 29552583)
[left]Unless they were a victim (a damaged party) they would be bounced out of Court for “lack of standing”

Do you believe it's impossible to *file* a lawsuit without standing? Sending a document to a court with a check is all they've done. You really believe that de facto makes them "victims"?

Besides - having standing doesn't mean a decision that damages occurred/a party was a victim. That's what the entire trial is for. Do you believe that having standing and then losing the trial/no damages means you're still a "victim"?

Qwkynuf Mar 21, 18 7:53 pm

Not sure what difference it will make. Assuming the class is certified, the defendant will settle, attorneys will get at least a couple hundred $K, and the "class" will each get a coupon for something like 15 cents off of your next purchase of $375 or more.

Remember the GM pickups lawsuit back in the 90's? I had one of the affected trucks. As a member of the class, I was awarded a $200 discount on the purchase of a new GM pickup (which as I recall was $25k$30K at the time).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:47 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.