ldpeters

UA does not have a choice-of-forum clause in their CoC. They do have one in their Web Site T&C. While the news is better for those of you who used a call center, I think UA gets a loophole for web bookings.


Yes. I have personal knowledge of this happening to (now former) Mileage Plus members. You might be able to use reinstating your account as leverage if you actually beat United in court, but unfortunately I have never heard of anyone beating UA in court. They do it regardless of whether they sue you, or you sue them. It was part of PMUA's standard procedure when dealing with litigation.

Though the conduct being discussed here is not a violation of the UA T&C, and as I was reminded by an acquaintance earlier today, if UA thinks you've violated their T&C and have done it from a work computer (based on IP), they have and will contact your employer with extremely nasty letters, usually indicating that an employee (naming you) has engaged in illegal activity in violation of a presumed corporate IT policy. This has resulted in people being fired from their (completely unrelated to UA) jobs. UA doesn't need anything from a court of law in order to do this (other than perhaps a subpoena related to the owner of the IP address, if not publicly available), and they are extremely, extremely vicious in how they pursue this avenue of intimidation.

You will not hear about these situations unless you are speaking to someone not party to the lawsuit, because the first thing that United requires when you settle with them in a suit or countersuit is to sign an NDA.

Key takeaway: PMUA fought dirty, dirty, dirty when it came to legal battles with customers. Dirtier than I've seen from any other corporate entity. Not sure if COdbUA does the same, but stands to reason they might...

ijgordon

I'm sorry, since when is violating UA's T&Cs considered an "illegal activity"?

ldpeters

They will argue that it is breach of contract, and I should have put "illegal" in quotes. I would read your corporate IT policy very closely, as most are overly broad and prohibit any "inappropriate" use. UA will argue the use is inappropriate. I'm not say that any of this is *right,* but rather that I know that this has been successful.

cordelli

Really?

People have been fired from their jobs for buying airline tickets online on a Sunday Afternoon in a two hour period?

Please tell us more.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away


This thread gets further and further from reality with each post.

Nobody will lose their job because they bought airline tickets in this deal, at least not anybody who doesn't work for United or one of it's contractors.

lewende

LOL...this is a good one, also kudos to ldpeters' thriller stories dwarfed any Harlequin publications...really really started to re-enjoy the whole drama after rounds of terrible analogies and propaganda from UAL PRs.

jhayes_1780

Question for the lawyers/former small claims judge:

Don't most states require UA to agree to small claims as venue?

If they don't agree to small claims as venue and it requires getting kicked up to district/circuit/superior court? Will that not potentially force the plaintiffs to get a lawyer (assuming they would be handicapped to navigate a formal court setting)?

One other thing: I *thought* the line was you don't NEED an attorney in small claims courts..... Rather then you CAN'T have an attorney represent you.

Can someone confirm (or deny) the above?

colpuck

No, UA gets no say in SCC as a venue choice unless the value of the dispute exceeds the limits of the court. (aka the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case)

Now UA can venue shop. IE lets say in AZ where I am. I live in FLG some two hours north of PHX. The majority of UA ops in AZ are operated out of PHX. If I sued UA where I lived they could make the argument that the FLG court is not the proper venue and have it moved to PHX forcing me to drive down there to sue them.

to sue anyone it doesn't matter if it is in Small Claims or the supreme court, three things have to be met.

The defendant has to be subject to personal jurisdiction in the jurisdiction your want to sue
The court has to have subject matter jurisdiction over case in question
and the court has to be the proper venue for the defendant to appear in.

missing anyone of those you get laughed out of court.

So some SCC ban attorneys (WA) or allow them with the consent of all parties (AZ) or there are no rules at all it depends on your state.

jhayes_1780

Maybe I used venue incorrectly..... Let me ask again/follow up:

Doesn't UA have to agree to small claims as the forum?

IE: UA gets served, then they either agree to small claims or request it go to a formal trial (jury or otherwise) and it gets kicked up to superior/district/circuit/etc.

colpuck

No. (unless there is some state specific law that grants the defendant that right)

ldpeters

No, I didn't say this. I also wasn't insinuating that this would happen. I was using it as an example of the hardball legal tactics that UA has been known to play, to show that they have

In the specific case in question, it involved someone using a computer on an employer's network, during the work day, to purchase about a dozen fully refundable airline tickets, in the hopes of getting VDBed on one or more. UA sued the passenger. When attempts to collect against the passenger were completely unsuccessful (UA was finding it difficult convince a judge that the passenger had breached the CoC), they sent a nasty letter to the owner of the network alleging inappropriate use of the network (the employer had a publicly available network use policy), and found some technicality which they claimed the employee violated. I know the lawyer involved. It was not pretty.

UA has no grounds to proceed against any of the folks in question. But, getting involved in a lawsuit with UA sounds like something I want to avoid, because you open yourself up to a) all sorts of ......, dirty tactics; b) you open yourself up to all sorts of countersuits; c) winning is a complete crapshoot.

StevenSeagalFan

I always thought that the venue was where the offense occurred and if the company does business in that state. I've sued multi-national corporations (including airlines) in Small Claims court and not once has the venue been changed.

EsquireFlyer

You start with the correct premise, but I don't think you reach the right conclusion.

The judge can (if he/she decides that you have proven your case) order United to pay enough money (up to the small claims limit) for you to buy a cash ticket to HKG in F.

"Making you whole" in contract usually refers to expectation damages (giving you the "benefit of the bargain").

A refund of the miles and taxes would only be rescission damages (undo the contract) or restitution damages (return the payment), which are usually not considered to fully make the plaintiff whole in a breach of contract situation, but are sometimes used in special cases (for example, when expectation damages would be totally unfair, for exceptional reasons; or, when performance of the contract is literally impossible). But that tends to be the exception, not the rule.

"Personal jurisdiction" is a separate concept from "venue."

Many/most courts in the state where the offense occurred may have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. But it's possible that only a few courts, or only one court, will be considered a proper venue (based on legal standards involving the residences of the parties, and other factors such as convenience to third-party witnesses, etc.)

StevenSeagalFan

If you're suing a business in small claims court, and they do business in the state (and by default in your jurisdiction if they do internet business) then they have "residency" in that state correct?

I know in California (from the CA courts website):

What if I am suing because I bought something or I paid for a service?
You can file your claim in the county:

Where you (the buyer) lives;
Where you (the buyer) lived when the item or service was purchased; or
Where you (the buyer) bought or paid for the item or service.

Also for those saying that small claims court would not be the appropriate venue because small claims courts can't issue injunctive relief, look for a state law that the UA situation violated that issues a civil penalty and sue Ipso facto

sbrower

For all you "soon to be lawyers" I thought I would post some real information about "mistake." Here is the official jury instruction for use in a California court. What appears between brackets is where I substituted actual names for blanks in the instruction:

[United] claims that there was no contract because [it] was mistaken about [the final price being charged for certain first class tickets]. To succeed, [United] must prove all of the following:
1. That [United] was mistaken about [the price, in FF miles, which its computer said should be charged for the tickets];
2. That [Frequent Flyer ticket holder] knew [United] was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of [it];
3. That [United]’s mistake was not caused by [its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [United] would not have agreed to enter into the contract if [it] had known about the mistake.
If you decide that [United] has proved all of the above, then no contract was created.

You can argue "excessive carelessness." You can argue "knew United was mistaken and used that mistake to take advantage of it." But you can't argue "once the computer sold me the ticket they were obligated."

StevenSeagalFan

No juries in small claims court.

If you do decide to have your case heard in front of a jury, that might be better. Juries aren't always the smartest in the bunch, whether we like to think it or not. A jury could just as easily decide that the defendant didn't prove their case, or a jury could just have a vendetta against the defendant. Juries are really weird sometimes.

In this particular matter, [United] (in my opinion) didn't act in good faith in handling the situation, and they didn't handle the situation the same for everybody (my understanding is that some people actually traveled) is there any collusion or fraud or deceit?