Comments on: Suit: United didn’t say wi-fi based services wouldn’t work offshore

By: gasman

gasman — Tue, 19 May 2015 13:10:57 +0000

Gotta wonder about an implied warranty. The airline, better than anyone else, knows the route to be flown. A slightly westward path could have the plane cover land most of the way, over islands and following the coast, whereas other viable paths would be ocean all the way.

Rather than bury the system availability in boiler plate text that is invariant of conditions, the airline site could define for the customer the expected utility. Especially relevant as the customer does not steer the plane’s course.

By: David C

David C — Sun, 17 May 2015 15:19:21 +0000

In reply to Boblipton.

And taking it to court is the action of a jerk.

Not if they refused to give the refund. I have no idea if they did; I didn't see that in the complaint. If a business essentially cheats you out of money, no matter how little, you aren't a jerk for trying to get it back. I agree with Hugo.

By: David C

David C — Sun, 17 May 2015 15:07:03 +0000

In reply to gitarcarver.

If it is big and bold and in their face, the only person responsible for not reading it is the person buying the service.

If that's true, then sure. But if it's in the middle of a bunch of fine print, I have much less sympathy for the airline.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Sun, 17 May 2015 06:31:39 +0000

United says they disclose to passengers at the time of purchase the parameters and geographic restrictions of the service. In a statement, United says:

“We believe this suit is without merit both factually and legally. On our DirecTV-equipped planes, we clearly inform our passengers in writing on the screen before they confirm their purchase that ‘Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft is outside of the continental United States’ and that ‘Wi-Fi service is available over the continental U.S.’”

If that warning does appear, I have no sympathy for the plaintiff or anyone who doesn’t read the disclaimer. If it is big and bold and in their face, the only person responsible for not reading it is the person buying the service.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Sat, 16 May 2015 22:47:42 +0000

I disagree, Hugo. I think they’re all jerks. The air line should note that the service doesn’t work over the water, but probably relied on not everyone asking for their money back. And taking it to court is the action of a jerk.

Bob

By: Hugo S Cunningham

Hugo S Cunningham — Sat, 16 May 2015 17:34:00 +0000

Did the airline offer to refund the $7.99? If not, they are jerks and I feel little sympathy for them, even though I wouldn’t file a lawsuit myself. If the airline did offer a refund, the plaintiff and her lawyer are jerks.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Sat, 16 May 2015 17:14:38 +0000

Whatever happened to double your money back guarantees?

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 16 May 2015 17:09:28 +0000

I agree with SPO. I’ve always assumed that the internet and TV offerings are satellite based and therefore wouldn’t be affected by travel over water, and the sales literature definitely doesn’t describe how the system functions, so I don’t know why you would expect an average customer to be aware of this without any disclosure.

By: SPO

SPO — Sat, 16 May 2015 15:27:00 +0000

This seems like a completely legitimate lawsuit.