'Predatory Business Practice?' — The Latest News on the Disney Park Pass Lawsuit

It’s been a busy few months for Disney.

From a battle over the Company’s Board of Directors (which has since ended) to the return of Bob Iger as CEO, a major restructuring, and the announcement of thousands of job cuts, a lot has happened in a short period of time. And among all of those updates, Disney has also been dealing with a variety of lawsuits, two of which focus on its Park Pass system (which Disney leaders continue to seemingly have a positive outlook on). So what’s going on with the Park Pass lawsuit in Florida that came from select Annual Passholders? We’ve got some updates!

Back in October of 2022, 2 Disney World Annual Passholders filed a lawsuit that takes issue with how the Park Pass system has impacted their Annual Passes.

We’ve shared a variety of updates on this lawsuit over the past few months. Most recently, in mid-January, we shared how a Second Amended Complaint was filed that revealed the Plaintiffs’ full names (as required by the Court). Disney responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Complaint based on various grounds. But now there’s been a new development.

On February 1st, 2023, a THIRD Amended Complaint was filed by the Plaintiffs against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc. The court thereafter denied Disney’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as “moot” in light of the Plaintiff’s third amended complaint.

It appears the Third Amended Complaint will become the central document for this case now. That means Disney will either have to file a new motion to dismiss the Complaint or they could answer the Complaint (though a motion to dismiss may be more likely).

So what does the Third Amended Complaint say? Let’s go over some of the key allegations and arguments.

The Complaint begins with an overview of the action. In that section, the Plaintiffs allege that both Disney’s Platinum Pass and Platinum Plus Pass had the material term no “Blockout Dates.” According to the Plaintiffs, Blockout Dates are “pre-designated days Disney closes off the parks to certain annual pass holders due to high park attendance or for other reasons that only Disney controls.”

They allege that having no Blockout Dates was “a very effective marketing tool when Disney looked to raise cash and sell its annual passes.”

But it’s about more than Blockout Dates. The Plaintiffs also claim that Park Hopping, another feature included with Annual Passes, was allegedly “one of the most sought-after and important features for those who hold Disney annual passes because of the flexibility it provides.”

They then detail what things were like before the pandemic — where Platinum Pass holders could go to all 4 parks 365 days of the year without blockout dates or restrictions and they could have “unfettered Park Hopping” access.

They then note how things changed following the COVID-19-related closures with the introduction of the Park Pass reservation system and Park Hopping restrictions.

They claim that the Plaintiffs “reasonably believed…that this reservation system would only be temporary and would end once the threat of the pandemic lessened because they had not been subject to this system pre-pandemic. However, this was not the case.” They then allege that “Disney used the Park Pass Reservation System during the pandemic and post-pandemic to maximize its profits.”

They also claim that by restricting Passholders’ access to the parks (by using the Park Pass system) Disney “effectively unilaterally modified all Platinum Pass holders’ contracts.” They argue that Passholders felt like they had no other option if they wanted an Annual Pass, so they were “forced to reluctantly agree to the terms of this new agreement.”

They also note that Park Hopping restrictions were put in place and the entire process has NOT returned to its pre-pandemic state (indeed, Park Hopping restrictions do remain in place as of this time — you can read about them here).

But there’s more — the Complaint also raises issues with the reported limits placed on how many Park Passes are made available to Passholders (versus other guests) on a particular day. They allege that “On some days, Platinum Pass holders cannot make reservations to go to a Florida park, even though there are single day passes available for purchase. In order to make more money, Disney is unilaterally and unfairly favoring single-ticket purchasers and multi-day ticket purchasers, while restricting Platinum Pass holders, in order to make a larger profit.”

It is interesting to see this alleged in light of recent comments from both current CEO Bob Iger and former CEO Bob Chapek. Chapek previously commented on how Disney would “start balancing” who is let into the parks. Iger seemed to be on the same wavelength as he recently said that recent changes had allowed Disney to shift the mix “from annual pass holders to people who may come just once in a lifetime or once.”

So Disney seems to be acknowledging, at least in part, that some actions they’re taking are skewing things away from Passholders.

Now, back to the Complaint. The Plaintiffs really hammer home their points by alleging that by using the Park Pass system and keeping it in place, Disney has “effectively subjected Platinum Passes to Blockout Dates, because the pass holders are subject to days and times in which their passes cannot be used.”

They claim that Disney’s conduct amounts to a “predatory business practice, aimed at exploiting the customers who support it the most, its annual pass holders.” They go so far as to say that “Disney abused a global pandemic to take advantage of its own loyal customers and increase its revenue.”

The Complaint then details a bit more about the Plaintiffs themselves and when they got their Annual Passes. They claim that in their view, “no Blockout Dates reasonably meant that if Disney was open and selling tickets, the Platinum Pass holders could enter Disney’s Florida parks. Plaintiffs did not understand this to mean that they would only be able to visit the parks on a limited amount of pre-selected dates like the other annual passes offered were limited to.”

They also raised an issue with the limits Disney has placed on the number of Park Passes each Annual Passholder can make/hold at any given time. For example, under the current system (with the new pass types), those with an Incredi-Pass can only make and hold up to 5 park reservations through their Annual Pass. They can however make more if they stay at a Disney Resort Hotel and some bonus reservations may also be available from time to time.

They claim that by instituting this change, Disney placed a “severe restriction on the Platinum Pass holder’s ability to visit the parks.” For example, they argued that “if a Platinum Pass holder made three days of reservations during the month of May for a trip in November, the Platinum Pass member would have to wait until their three days were used in November, before making any new park reservations.” (At that time, the limit was 3 days.)

They then detail how the Plaintiffs were part of a group planning a bridal party in Disney World. That trip got moved to November 2020 due to the pandemic. In June, they claim that they called Disney to add some passholders to the reservation number but “due to the Park Pass Reservation system, and Disney’s scheme to penalize annual pass holders to increase revenue, Plaintiffs were met with frustration and poor customer service.”

One of the options Disney reportedly offered was for them to “only make reservations for three days of their trip and ‘hope’ they could get reservations for the other days after they expended their three days of reservations.”

They also pointed out that at one point one of the Plaintiffs (a Passholder) and her significant other (an individual with a multi-day pass) were trying to plan a trip together. They claim that the Passholder was unable to get park reservations on days that her significant other could with the multi-day pass.

They claim that if this was a matter of controlling capacity, “there would not be availability for any new reservations. Instead, Disney is doing nothing more than taking advantage of customers who pre-paid a premium for unlimited access, by limiting these same customers’ access to the parks, so Disney can charge new guests at the expense of the annual pass holders that had already pre-paid.”

Toy Story Land in Disney’s Hollywood Studios

One Plaintiff allegedly felt like they were unable to rely on their Annual Pass to get the reservations they needed, so they claim that they were “forced” to make a Disney World hotel reservation so they could secure Park Passes by using the amount set aside for hotel guests (as opposed to the amount set aside for Passholders).

Plus, they claim this was “necessary” to prevent the Passholder from losing days of park access. If they used up the limited amount of Park Pass reservations their Annual Pass could hold at one time, then they allege Plaintiff would have “lost months of park access by trying to plan her trip in advance.”

In concluding their central factual allegations, the Plaintiffs claim that “Disney’s implementation of the Park Pass Reservation System and favoritism towards more lucrative/more profitable non-annual pass holders has materially changed the terms of the originally passes and subjected Plaintiffs to Blockout Dates.” They claim Disney has breached implied and/or express contracts, breached an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, been unjustly enriched, and engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices.

They then go on to make more of the legal arguments necessary within a Complaint, and they identify who might fall into the classes of their purported class action suit. It could potentially include anyone within the U.S. that purchased a Platinum Pass prior to the lawsuit and was denied entry to Disney World as a result of the actions discussed.

The Complaint also includes a demand for a jury trial. Whew, that’s a lot to take in! While many of the arguments are ones we’ve seen filed in prior versions of the Complaint, it’s good to get a full look at just what the Third Amended Complaint argues as the freshest Complaint in the case.

In addition to the new Complaint, two other documents were filed — notices of related cases by Disney and the Plaintiffs. These documents essentially let the Court know what other cases out there may be related to this action. Interestingly, Disney listed several other cases related to the action, but most have already been closed.

The one that remains open is the Park Pass lawsuit we’ve already shared some details about which is ongoing in California. That lawsuit addresses Park Passes and how it impacts Magic Key holders.

So…what happens now? Well, we’ll continue to watch for updates. We expect that Disney will file a response soon, likely a motion to dismiss this updated Complaint. Then, arguments will progress from there and we’ll have to see what claims (if any) the Court allows or refuses to allow to go forward.

We will let you know what we find. To learn more about another lawsuit Disney is involved in right now (which involves the streaming world) click here. And stay tuned for more information.