Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > TravelBuzz
Reload this Page >

Were you a victim ?

Were you a victim ?

Old Mar 20, 18, 11:37 pm
  #1  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
Were you a victim ?

Class Action filed against, among others, Marriott

https://www.eturbonews.com/180714/co...tt-and-wyndham
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 20, 18, 11:56 pm
  #2  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.021MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CWC Au-197; CCC Elite*; WoH Dis
Posts: 49,956
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.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 1:07 am
  #3  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
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 View Post
Until the lawsuit is settled, nobody is a victim.
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 1:26 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 12,233
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.
garykung is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 6:36 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Programs: UA GS, Marriott/SPG Amb, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by garykung View Post
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.
getagb is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 6:47 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Programs: UA MM, MB LifeTit
Posts: 1,717
CNN keeps telling me that targeted advertising is bad. Now targeted nonadvertising is also bad.
EricH is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 9:25 am
  #7  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 27,342
Originally Posted by Srisarin View Post
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.
CPRich is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 10:53 am
  #8  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,808
Originally Posted by EricH View Post
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.
Proudelitist is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 2:41 pm
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, SW Florida, and Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Discovery Black, and assorted others
Posts: 28,172
Awesome title!
LondonElite is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:15 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Long Beach, CA
Programs: AA PLT, Hilton Diamond, IHG PlatAmb, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Gold
Posts: 3,057
Is it ironic or amusing that while reading this, all I had were targeted ads for hotels that I've recently searched?
OskiBear is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:19 pm
  #11  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: HH-D; MR-P/LTP; SPG-P
Posts: 849
Unless they were a victim (a damaged party) they would be bounced out of Court for “lack of standing”

Originally Posted by CPRich View Post
Alleging that they are a victim does not make them a victim.
Srisarin is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:31 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 12,233
Originally Posted by getagb View Post
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?
garykung is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:44 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 27,342
Originally Posted by Proudelitist View Post
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 is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:49 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 27,342
Originally Posted by Srisarin View Post
[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"?

Last edited by CPRich; Mar 21, 18 at 8:04 pm
CPRich is offline  
Old Mar 21, 18, 7:53 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,206
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).
Qwkynuf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: