Churning is not wrong, per se. A bank may either allow it or not. Chase has decided not to allow it. Chase must have determined that churning does not deliver profits. If a card holder gets a card, charges $5 on it, collects 21,000 or more miles, and then cancels the card, it is hard to imagine that the bank has made any money. While we may not like the decision about churning, it is easy to understand from the bank's point of view.

Personally, I would love to be able to churn, or at least to have an annual fee waived, but I understand if the bank doesn't want to do this.

When I originally posted this thread some time back, it was to inform others about the changes being made to the Chase Platinum Visa card. These included only waiving the $140 fee for accounts opened before September 1, 2006, and requiring accounts to stay open for one year, or else the bonus miles offer would be forfeited.

This thread was later merged with another thread detailing how Chase was reneging on the bonus mile offer for those whom have multiple accounts. For those whom made the application for the 25K Platinum Visa bonus mile offer from the link listed previously in this thread and also found in other threads on Flyertalk, we have every right to expect Chase to fufill their obligations and award the full offer. Failure to do so is tantamount to deceptive advertising and fraud. Plaintiffs have huge gotten awards from companies for doing things like this.

If Chase no longer allows the bonus to be awarded for more than one card, this is their choice; however, full and clear disclosure needs to be made to the applicants. Furthermore, Chase should not be sending out tons of credit card apps with the bonus mile offer on them. The issue here is retrocatively cancelling their end of the deal.

Inconsistent
 

Chase is being inconsistent

I have gotten EQM's several times since they put in the new rule

In fact...Here is a letter from Chase.

The thing is, full and clear disclosure is being made. It is noted in the link for the "more rewards information." Yes, you are correct that this link does not say "Terms & Conditions" nor is the link prominently displayed. However, this is the case with all fine print. IANAL but it seems to me that legally, Chase is covered because the T&Cs are there to read - clearly, many people have found that link and read the T&Cs, even if many have also not.

The advertising may be misleading, yes, but it is neither fraudulent nor deceptive because the T&Cs are posted and available - it just takes a keen eye to see the link.

My point is that the new applicants only clause is being listed in the more rewards information link at the bottom of the page and in an unevident fashion:very few people see it. This is not cover for Chase.

In the pricing and terms of the card, it states that you may have more than one card. The new applicants clause is NOT listed in the pricing and terms of the card: these are the terms and conditions that one checks to see what the rules of the card are. This is why my example of the invisible ink that has contract clauses written into a contract is applicable here.

I have spoken with several Chase telephone representatives as late as November and December 2006, and they told me that a customer may have multiple cards and receive the bonus offer more than once. Chase is attempting to entice customers to sign up for more than one of their cards, and then they want to not uphold their end of the offer.

When you are in business, you have to be have clear, consistent, and honest practices. Misleading customers will only cause problems for a business in the long run.

I agree that very few people see it, but because it's there and is accessible, this is sufficient for Chase to be legally covered. Companies deliberately make "fine print" hard to read and hard to find - this is why it's "fine print" and not "large type." :) Although it is not consumer-friendly, it's legally sufficient.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, the pricing/terms T&Cs don't have any information about the mileage-earning program in general. They cover only the financial side of the card, i.e. rates, fees, creditworthiness, etc. None of the rewards information, promotional or otherwise, is covered there. This is why that page is not relevant for this purpose... only the page listing the T&Cs of the rewards program is relevant. It's unfortunate but that's the case.

I absolutely believe you were told that by the reps. However, as we all know too well, reps are very often wrong and if you call 10 times you may get 10 different answers... even if the question has only two possible answers! :p While Chase may end up giving you your miles because of what the phone reps said, this would purely be a goodwill move on their part - because the written T&Cs are the binding terms (and verbal commitments from reps are not legally binding), they are in practice not legally liable for giving you the promotional offer on your second, third, etc. cards.

The credit card industry, as many others, are built upon misleading customers (but still within the boundaries of the law) and making it easy for them to screw up and be charged fees, interest, etc. I doubt this will change any time soon, unfortunately.

agreed, and that's precisely why, when it comes to things involving cards and miles, I do my damndest to git 'em first!

(churns, return change schemes, gift cards, cash advances, whatever)

it's my only way to survive! :D

The details of the 25K bonus miles and the 5K EQM bonus miles offer is listed on the main page here. Notice, there is no mention of the new applicant clause here.

http://www.firstusa.com/cgi-bin/webc...cont&mkid=60FW

You have to disclose this information clearly. Now where would the logical place for the conditions be? It would be in the pricing and the terms of the card.

Again, here are the full pricing and terms of the card.
http://www.firstusa.com/cgi-bin/webc..._type=appterms

I do agree that credit card companies may not always be clear about items like finance charges and APRs and fees, but you should be able to find these in the agreement or by phoning customer service. The employees are acting as agents of the company, even if they give you "inaccurate information." When Chase phone reps tell the customer that you may have multiple cards and receive the sign up bonus offer multiple times, this has legitimacy. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Only the "major" details are listed on the front page; the clause isn't listed there because it's (expectedly) part of the "fine print," as is any other restriction on qualification. This is true for both the promotion and the card itself.

Well, here's where intelligent and logical people disagree. I hold that the Pricing and Terms of the card cover only the financial aspect of the card, not the reward program. The promotional offer is part of the reward program, and therefore the conditions of the promotional offer should be (and are) listed along with the terms for the rewards program in general. I understand that you and some others don't think this is the logical place to put those conditions, whereas I and some others think it actually is logical. After this much back and forth, it's clear that neither camp will convince the other. However, if you are pondering the issue of fraud and deceptive advertising, the salient question is whether a court would consider Chase's choice of where to put the terms as logical or not... or rather,whether they would consider it as sufficiently logical so that a "majority" of people would be able to find the terms. I think they would, i.e. the court would uphold Chase in this regard.

The Chase reps certainly are agents of the company, but their spoken word is not legally binding. Only the written contract which you signed when applying for the card is legally binding, and therefore whatever the reps may have told you is, for legal purposes, irrelevant. As I said, Chase may take the high road and acknowledge that you were operating under information given to you by the reps, who are supposed to provide accurate information, and will give you the promotional offerings as a gesture of goodwill and understanding. However, they are not legally obligated to do so given that the terms of the promotional offer were explicitly stated on the reward program T&C page (as much as you feel that said information was not clearly presented).

Now, as I said, after this many posts it is abundantly clear that neither of us will convince the other, and from re-reading our posts I can see that we are basically just rehashing the same argument and restating the same points over and over. I think we can safely consider this matter "unresolvable" and simply conclude that you are welcome to pursue Chase as much as you like but that some of us feel that such pursuit is fruitless.

I respect your logic and the reasons you give for listing the terms of the promotional offer under additional reward program information, but I do not agree with this. IMHO, the place to look for this is in the pricing and terms of the credit card. What I think both of us and many other posters should agree upon is this. Chase should state clearly on the home page for the offer that it is valid only for first time applicants. It would also be good to state this information again in BOTH the pricing terms and conditions, and the additional reward program information. I also would prefer that Chase takes the high road and resolves the situation, as this is my goal

What happens if Chase sent you a letter stating that you would receive the 25K bonus miles, 1000 mile upgrade cert, and $25 discount cert in six to eight weeks. This is in addition to my previous information stating that I spoke with several Chase reps via phone whom informed me that one may have several cards and receive the bonus mile promotional offer multiple times.

Well, that would certainly strengthen your moral argument with Chase and perhaps gives you more hope that they will make the goodwill decision to honor the offer in your case. That being said, since those letters are automated, I really don't know what the legal ramifications are, especially if the letter has an asterisk and fine print stating "subject to qualification" or whatever, which it probably does not.

In any case, I wish you luck getting this resolved in your favor. As to the rest of the argument, I think it's best put to bed at this point. :)

Thank God! I second! I think whoever want to make their voice heard in the last 3 pages have achieved the goal by now. It's time to move on. ^

no effin way man, now it's time for me n you to go at it! :D:D:D:D

annnnyway, while there is some definitely valulable info in all the above posts of the two sides of said arguement, I will say this:

Some companies DO have rules on how to disclose and where to put stuff. Fidelity Investments, for example, has a minimum font size for its "fine print" and when I worked there, they were really big on making sure that items that needed to be referenced such as the little "1" and "*" abd "†" you see in things like credit apps were very easy to find! This made people WANT to spend their money with them, they thought. That's at least what they tried to accomplish. :)

My letter was written by a Chase representative detailing my eligibility for the bonus mile offer, and it actually did NOT have an asterik or other fine print written on it.:D

What I would like to see is that this thread becomes a source of information again on the Chase Mileage Plus Visa cards. Since we know that they will only allow the promotional offers for first time applicants, then it is important that we can inform as many Flyertalk members about this and other rules, so potential applicants for additional cards may avoid unpleasant situations.

What if you only have 3K miles in MP at the time they try to deduct it? Will they just keep trying until they can take back all 25K??