Vacationer Says Universal Studios Stripped Away Premium Membership Benefits
Frequent Universal Studios Florida vacationer Victor bought a premier annual pass for $300, which gave him free kennel service and $50 upgrades from regular rooms to suites.
He says Universal pulled the red carpet out from under him by taking full advantage of the terms of service that dictate the benefits are "subject to change without notice." When he called to make his reservations, he found the discount room upgrade and free kennel service are gone. He writes:
I am a premier annual pass holder for universal studios Florida. Me and my family vacation there often and stay on site. When I purchased my pass I did so to take advantage of the $50 upgrade to a suite from a basic room (this is at the Portofino). This advantage was a huge factor. Well, Today I called to make reservations and I was informed that this benefit was gone as well as the free kennel service. Now there was no $50 upgrade and the kennel was no longer free. It was only 50% off the kennel. I paid $300 for this pass and agreed to the terms at the time of purchase.
I understand that these soulless corporations probably put "subject to change without notice" under the benefits, but I still feel like its a slap in the face that people who are still traveling and spending money in this harsh economic climate are having the rug pulled out from under them on services they've already purchased. Talk about a bait and switch. These kind of unscrupulous business practices perhaps underly a slow shift away from trying to reward long time customers/benefactors and instead shift to a model that puts profit ahead of the entertainment , enjoyment, and overall experience of paying guests. This is borderline fraud in my mind. I figured that I'd let you in on this so that others know that if they enter into an agreement with universal studios they shouldn't count on the terms staying what you initially paid for.
It seems Victor is well within reason to demand a refund. And since this is serious money we're talking here, he might consider an Executive Email Carpet Bomb if he gets any guff. Any thoughts on what Victor might do to get his money back?
Post a comment
Comments:
Had he ever taken advantage of these benefits before? Also curious what kennel fees run at Universal..
Borderline fraud? Its outright false advertising. "Terms and Conditions" may change does not grant a free-for-all for companies.
Sounds like Universal did everything they were supposed to. The terms he agreed to said "subject to change without notice."
They didn't "pull the red carpet out from under him," they informed him on the phone that the terms had changed before he had plunked any money down. That gave him the option to say no. Sorry if he didn't like the new terms, but that what he probably agreed to. After all, he admits he didn't read the terms of the agreement.
Caveat emptor.
Without notice does not mean without compensation. This is still a unilateral change to terms. They don't owe him notice of the change. They do owe him the (at least pro-rated) cost of the contract.
@CompyPaq: Agreed. I've always wondered about the exact legal terms of the "subject to change" clause you find in the fine print.
The worst example I've ever experienced was when I ordered a steak at a restaurant (listed at $16 in the menu). When the final bill arrived the steak was priced at $20. When I complained to the waitress, and then the manager, they pointed out a small "prices subject to change" in tiny print on the back of the menu and were unwilling to budge. This usage seems like a complete aberration to the clause.
@laffmakr: Even if you're right - fine, they played by the rules, but that doesn't make it any less dickish...or stupid when it comes to them wanting to keep or get more customers.
@laffmakr: He felt he already purchased the perks (that are now gone) with his $300 premier pass, not necessarily with the reservation for a future stay. I would like to know what perks remain that Universal believes are worth the difference between a regular annual pass and the premier.
Their site lists $10 per day per pet, no overnight boarding, and you provide the food. If you were counting on the $300 membership paying for itself, you're looking at 60 days of kennel service.
@CompyPaq: This is what happens when you let accountants make all of your business decisions.
Fact: Universal (as all theme parks) is having a crappy year
Fact: They need to squeeze every penny they can to keep things above water
BIGGEST FACT: PISSING OFF YOUR MOST LOYAL CUSTOMERS IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.
I have a hard time seeing this as anything other than breach of contract... Small claims court should rectify this.
I'd just like to say that I can't ever imagine a company like Disney doing this to their customers staying at a resort. I know Disney's not always the best company in the world, but when it comes to theme park visits and taking care of their "own" they wouldn't pull a stunt like this.
@MonkeyMonk: I would have pointed out that both the tip I would be leaving and the likelihood of my return are also both "subject to change."
You have @laffmakr: You have no understanding of how contract law works. A contract that has no real terms and can be changed without limits by only one party is clearly ambiguous. Ambiguous contracts can easily be voided.
Thus, your analysis is completely wrong. Basically he paid $300 and Universal was under no obligation to do anything. That's not a contract. His money should and will be refunded.
Are there other perks that still make this premier pass worth having? If not, Victor should just ask for a refund of the $300 if he hasn't used it yet. If asking doesn't work, EECB is next.... good luck!
I remember an old episode of "Night Court" where the guy kept putting NY landmarks in the comment field for his fine, and because the City cashed the checks, he "owned" the Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, etc. What's to stop someone from paying by check, and in the memo field, putting "Subject to a free lifetime membership if cashed." Just like those "checks" you get in junk mail that if you cash sign you up for some junk service?
@laffmakr: That's right. When a person does something unethical, it's bad. When a business does it, it's capitalism. I'm sure if the OP did something to violate the spirit of the agreement but within the terms, you would be jumping all over him. How typical.
It's not really a "bait and switch" if they only change two of the benefits. Looking at the website, there are 42 exclusive benefits to the premier pass. Apparently, there used to be 43. They changed 1 and removed the other. That's not a bait and switch...and it's not necesarily "wrong", either.
Never agree with a contract that allows the company to change the service without warning. There have been many articles in the past from many websites about companies doing this. In most cases the companies do a good job in hiding the fact that they can change the contract any time they want and when they find it profitable, they will change the contract and screw you over.
This sounds a lot like a recent post on Christopher Elliott's travel blog. A guy paid $150 for a lifetime Hilton HHonors Gold VIP elite membership, only to have his membership and all his points stripped due to the "we can keep your money and give you nothing" fine print.
Yup, false advertising. In addition to small claims court, the Federal Trade Commission and the relevant state attorney general's office might be very interested.
Incidentally, I saw some lawyerly comment about something similar on LinkedIn last night, regarding weasel-word clauses in patents. It seems that, despite the fact that patents have routinely contained such clauses for ages, they are just as routinely rejected by the courts.
Seems to me a few court precedents about this "we get to unilaterally change the terms whenever we want" nonsense in contracts might be in order.
Not going to blame the OP...and not going to give a "Why s ths n Cnsmrst?", but I really think you guys need to research some stuff before you post it. Obviously, this was the reason that Victor bought the pass...and I can see why that would be upsetting.
Having said that...chances are it was the hotel and not Universal that changed the discount to 30 percent off all rooms.
And...as I've mentioned several times in this thread...there still appear to be a ton of exclusive benefits for this pass...it's not like they made all levels the same:
What I find most interesting about this one is how much it resembles DRM. You buy something--or you think you've bought it--and later on they can change what you're allowed to do with your purchase, or even prevent you from using at all. Universal seems to be treating its memberships in the same kind of way: the OP bought a membership, and later on, Universal decided to change what he can do with it, how he can use it. Without notice and without possibility of appeal.
@MonkeyMonk: That's ridiculous. The price may not always be $16 for all eternity, but they can't tell you it's one price when you order it and another price when you get the bill. You shouldn't have paid it.
@MonkeyMonk: I'd be interested to see what your state's AG thinks of that practice. It's dangerously close to bait-and-switch.
At the very least, it's worth letting your local newspaper or local TV news know about; they love hidden-camera'ing stuff like that.
@hoi-polloi: yeah that's what I figured. But let's say you're there for a week (6 nights) with 1 pet, and you're upgrading to a suite, that's $110 in savings. Assuming a "frequent visitor" makes about 3 trips a year, it could easily cover the cost of the premier pass.
But the thing is, this pass doesn't JUST get you these perks, does it? If the pass was SOLELY for upgrades and kennel service, then yeah - I'd be pissed. But they changed their terms to take out a couple of bonuses previously included, and they legally had the right to. It sucks but I wouldn't say it's "fraud"
@hoi-polloi: Don't forget the room upgrade as well as park admission. A one-day pass is $73 and a two-park pass is $99. Factor in the room upgrade (which is now somewhere north of $50) and you're looking at this pass paying for itself in 3 days or less depending on how much more the suite upgrade costs now.
@Smashville_makes his own comments at home:
Them do research, yeah right.
But this is the OP fault, just complaining about nothing, he still has lots of other benefits he can still use.
They only changed some stuff, it's not like they gotten rid of the whole thing.
...if the difference in regular prices between a regular hotel room and a suite is $100 a night, and it probably is, it takes 6 days for the pass to pay for itself. Not including free kennel, and whatever else the card gives you (probably VIP lines at rides & shows and stuff like that too).
@Razor512: But at the same time, if they change it in such a way that you would not have signed up then if the terms were what the company has changed them to now, you can void the contract.
The OP wrote:
I understand that these soulless corporations probably put "subject to change without notice"
Does he KNOW that the terms said that, or is he just assuming? He should find the original TOS and see. If it DOESN'T include that, I think he should get full perks.
@MonkeyMonk: I had a restaurant fail to honor an advertised promotion. The waitress supposedly talked to the manager but he never came to the table. I wrote on the receipt what I would have tipped, deducted the amount in dispute (about 60% of the tip) and wrote that they should take it up with the manager for the rest.
I'm sure she was screwed, but I wasn't going to be.
Now I am going to blame the OP. The new discount for the Loews Portofino Bay hotel is 30 percent off.
The cheapest room rate is $379. If you get a suite with your 30 percent discount, it is now $403 per night.
With your original discount it would have been $429 per night.
$429 > $403.
Kennel fees are 10 dollars per day, but you get a 50 percent discount...which is 5 dollars per day.
You would need to bring 5 dogs with you to have a worse discount.
Your benefits got better.
Evidently none of you have ever read the Terms Intel came out with for Pentium processors after the big floating point division debacle, it basically boiled down to. Intel will sell you a "cpu" it doesn't have to do anything..
Terms are what they are, and unfortunately if that "subject to change without notice" was included they can indeed get away with just about anything that doesn't violate any local laws. It doesn't make it right and doesnt make it good business.
"subject to change without notice" needs to be banned from commercial contracts. If one party gets to put that in, it's basically no longer a contract at all.
I'm confused.
When Bank of America changed that woman's interest rate last week to 30%-ish, everyone was jumping on her that she was out of luck because the credit card terms and conditions state that the interest rate can change at any time and the bank was within their rights, etc. etc. etc.
Now we feel sorry for this guy whose rewards programs changed the terms and conditions of their program, even though they also had a 'subject to change...' line in their contract?
So, which is it?
(I happen to agree that both Bank of America and Universal Studios suck for changing the contracts, but that's just my opinion).
@msbask: Because he's not being a douche about it. I honestly think that affects a lot of the "Blame the OP" folks.
I agree that you should get the same terms that you paid for. Sure the "terms" can change w/o notice, but that should only effect people buying AFTER that. I've never understood why companies get away with that.
But I also never understood why insurance companies can deny ANYONE for "pre-existing conditions," so I guess I'm jut naive.
@msbask: The interest rate increase does not apply to an already existing balance, as long as you stop using the card. So in the BOA example, she could cancel the card and pay off her balance at the old rate.
@clint07: This benefits page indicates the discount only applies to one (1) pet. Then again, it also makes clear that this is just one of many benefits offered with the pass.
In broad terms, individual benefits could be added, removed, and changed without significantly affecting the value of the pass. However, if a given customer only uses two benefits, and they're both removed or reduced, the pass is significantly devalued for that customer.
Universal may have covered themselves legally with the "subject to change" language, but still should extend Victor some compensation in the interest of customer service/retention. After all, he can't use the kennel and room upgrade benefits without spending other dollars at the park!
I'd recommend that Victor figure out how many trips to the park he averages per month. Let's say it's 2: He should cite that figure in his letter, and request 2 free kennel visits and 2 free room upgrades for each month remaining on his annual pass. The cost to the park is likely lower than the amount of money Victor and his family will spend using them.
@CompyPaq: Always fear the asterisk*
*Terms and conditions subject to change without notice, all customers may not qualify for best rates, fees and taxes are extra, etc, etc, etc,
@Deezul_AwT: Those memo fields don't mean squat, I thought.. only to remind the person who wrote them what the check was for. Otherwise the rent check my boyfriend has been giving me for his half really is for 'a good time', 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' and 'ponies'.
@Deezul_AwT: The discussion of putting conditions on checks has hit some credit card boards pretty strong and basically the deal is that businesses make the contracts with all kinds of outs for themselves yet also provide that the customer is bound even if something in the contract changes.
Putting a clause or condition on a check supposedly does not qualify since these businesses process payments separately from correspondance so ~supposedly~ there is no notice given to the business this way.
I say ~supposedly~ due to the self-same issue of the sign-me-up clause carrying checks signing up a consumer for a service doesn't seem to be a problem for businesses to do so why can't it work both ways? No good answer has ever been provided other than "notice and acceptance" type discussion...
@GMFish: "A contract that has no real terms and can be changed without limits by only one party is clearly ambiguous. Ambiguous contracts can easily be voided."
Ask the credit card companies about that one. That whole industry is based on changing contracts without limits...
I understand why companies make these changes to existing plans but they need to grandfather-in promised services to the people who paid good money for them. To reneg on them in the middle of a service term amounts to nothing more than a bait-and-switch.