Passholders Claim Disney “Unlawfully Restricted” Them

New Annual Passes might be going on sale for Disney World soon, but the Park Pass lawsuit brought by Annual Passholders continues — and there have been some NEW developments.

This lawsuit was filed back in October of 2022 by 2 Disney World Annual Passholders who were unhappy with how the Park Pass system has impacted their Annual Passes. We’ve shared a number of updates over the past few months, including news about the filing of a modified complaint but now things are moving forward to a critical point.

A Bit of Background

First, let’s go over the latest complaint that was filed. The Third Amended Complaint was filed by the Passholders (Plaintiffs) on February 1st, 2023 against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, U.S., Inc.

You can read a detailed description of the Complaint here, but here are the basics of what the Plaintiffs claim:

• Before the pandemic, Platinum Pass holders could go to all 4 parks 365 days of the year without blockout dates or restrictions.
• Then, Disney instituted some restrictions, introducing Park Passes and certain Park Hopping limitations.
• They claim Disney has modified the Platinum Passholders’ contract.
• They also allege that “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.”
• 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.”

But these allegations haven’t gone unanswered. Disney has filed a response about these claims.

Disney’s Response

In mid-February, Disney filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ most updated complaint. In this Motion to Dismiss, Disney argues that their annual passes are governed by certain express terms and conditions — “express” being the key word here.

They argue that Disney “reserved the right to change those terms and conditions and annual passholders’ park access,” and that they did so during by instituting the Park Park system.

Disney claims that their actions did not violate any supposed implied contract terms or other things. They argue that the express terms of their agreement do not prevent Disney from requiring Park Passes. Instead, they insist that the express contract allows Disney to modify “at will” Passholders’ park access.

Disney goes on to say that they “took extraordinary measures to accommodate its annual passholders” as they were transitioning into the Park Pass system, allowing some to request a refund for the closure period, and giving passholders the chance to opt out of their passes. They point out that the Plaintiffs remained passholders and didn’t choose to opt out.

According to Disney, the Plaintiffs claim (1) they had an implied contract with Disney that their passes would not have blockout dates, and (2) they had an express contract with Disney that also promised them “no blockout dates.”

Disney argues that they did NOT have an implied contract with the Plaintiffs. Instead, they insist that the only contract that existed was an express one that warned passholders that the “terms and conditions governing their passes were subject to change.”

Even if their express agreement promised no blockout dates, Disney argues that the things the Plaintiffs have complained about do NOT constitute blockout dates. Disney claims that the Plaintiffs haven’t shown any dates where the passes were “not eligible” to hold ANY reservations. Instead, Platinum Passholders could make reservations any day of the year, but the dates that Plaintiff identified were dates that had already filled up because other Passholders had already booked them.

What about Disney reportedly limiting the number of reservations made available to Platinum Passholders on any given day? Disney argues that this is NOT the same as blockout dates because some Platinum Passholders could make reservations for those dates, they just had to score them before others took up those spots.

Disney then requests that the Complaint (for the reasons above and more contained in the motion) be dismissed. But that’s not the end of the story.

The Plaintiffs’ Response

In late March, the Plaintiffs filed a response to Disney’s motion to dismiss. They once again claim that Disney “unlawfully restricted Platinum Pass holders’ ability to enter its Florida theme parks to garner more daily ticket sales” and breached implied contracts with the Plaintiffs.

According to the Plaintiffs, they bought Platinum Passes because Disney advertised and offered them as having no blockout dates — they “reasonably” thought this meant they’d have access to the parks 365 days a year as long as the parks weren’t at capacity. But they claim that now they can’t use their passes to visit Disney World on days when the parks aren’t even at capacity and Park Passes are available to OTHER people.

They claim that they were “severely limited in the use of their near worthless Platinum Passes.” The Plaintiffs claim the problem is “Defendant’s use of the COVID-19 pandemic to increase its own profits at the expense of Platinum Pass holders.”

In response to Disney’s arguments about express vs. implied contracts, the Plaintiffs say that they’ve brought the claims as alternatives to one another, but they argue that even if you focus on the express contract, Disney’s terms and conditions in their express contract are unconscionable. 

Basically, they claim that the Passholder Contracts were a “take-it-or-leave-it” situation where the Plaintiffs couldn’t really negotiate the terms and had no other options if they wanted a pass with the same benefits.

Even though the contract lets Disney change the terms and conditions of the passes, the Plaintiffs argue that such changes should be ones that could be anticipated when the contract was entered into. They claim no one would have anticipated that Disney would change things to essentially remove the “no blockout dates” feature.

Because they believe the express contract is invalid, the Plaintiffs argue an implied contract would control and they claim Disney breached that too. They argue that Disney advertised that there would be no blockout dates for these passes, but then effectively created blockout dates with the Park Pass system (because once the allotted Platinum Pass reservations were filled up for the day, other Platinum Passholders couldn’t get in, even if there were Park Passes still available for regular ticketed guests).

The Plaintiffs go on to argue that some of Disney’s actions were deceptive and “led consumers to believe that they were purchasing something they were not – a Platinum Pass with ‘no blockout dates.'”

For those reasons (and more in the response), the Plaintiffs argue that the Complaint should NOT be missed at this stage.

Basically, at its core, Disney has argued that the supposed implied contract shouldn’t control, the express contract gave them the ability to change the terms at any time, and the things the Plaintiffs complain about aren’t “really” blockout dates. The Plaintiffs argue that the express contract is unfair, the implied contract should be considered in the alternative, Disney promised “no blockout dates,” and Disney created blockout dates by limiting the number of Park Passes available to Annual Passholders (essentially blocking them out once that allotted number is full even if the parks aren’t at capacity and Park Passes are available to other guests on that same day).

What Next?

So…what happens next? Well, now we wait. It’s possible that a hearing on this motion will take place soon. At that point, the court would determine whether to grant the motion in whole or in part. That will help define what (if any) of the Plaintiffs’ claims get to move forward — so it really is a critical time in the early part of this case.

We’ll keep an eye out for more updates and let you know what we find. In the meantime, click the link below to learn all about when an Annual Pass is worth it.

6 Times When a Disney World Annual Pass Is Worth It

What do you think about the arguments in this case? Tell us in the comments.

Comments (2)