Cases

European Court of Justice: insolvency protection also applies in case of a package organiser’s fraudulent conduct
The Landgericht Hamburg (Regional Court, Hamburg, Germany) asked the ECJ whether the protection of consumers pursuant to article 7 of the Package Travel Directive (PTD) also applied where the insolvency was attributable to fraudulent conduct on the part of the travel organiser. The Landgericht Hamburg must rule on the action brought by Mr Blödel-Pawlik against HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG, a German insurance company, concerning its refusal to refund the cost of package travel which did not take place because of the insolvency of the travel organiser, Rhein Reisen GmbH. The travel organiser – which, in the view of the Landgericht, had never really intended to organise the trip which Mr Blödel-Pawlik had booked for himself and his wife – became insolvent because it had embezzled the money paid by prospective travellers. It had taken out insurance against insolvency with HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG and had provided Mr Blödel-Pawlik with two notices of guarantee confirming that the cost of the trip would be refunded if the trip did not take place owing to the organiser’s insolvency. According to the insurance company, however, the Package Travel Directive is not intended to protect travellers against fraudulent conduct on the part of a package travel organiser. In judgment of Feb. 16, 2012, the ECJ held that the protection conferred on travellers under the PTD in the event of insolvency on the part of the package travel organiser applies even where the insolvency is attributable to the organiser’s own fraudulent conduct. The directive is specifically aimed at arming consumers against the consequences of insolvency, whatever its causes. Accordingly, the fact that the insolvency of the travel organiser is attributable to its own fraudulent conduct cannot constitute an obstacle to the refund of money paid over or to the repatriation of travellers. Source: ECJ press release 13/12 of Feb. 16, 2012 Find full text of judgment in Case C-134/11 - Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG here>>.
"Reviews you can trust" - UK Advertising Standards Authority finds TripAdvisor ads misleading
Claims on tripadvisor.co.uk, a website providing holiday and travel consumer reviews, stated "... read reviews from real travellers ... TripAdvisor is the world's largest travel site, enabling travellers to plan and have the perfect trip. TripAdvisor offers trusted advice from real travellers and a wide variety of travel choices and planning features ... TripAdvisor.com features: More than 50 million honest travel reviews and opinions from real travellers around the world". Review pages on the website featured the TripAdvisor logo next to the claim "Reviews you can trust" above a chart that gave details of the rating summary and percentage recommendation of the relevant location. KwikChex Ltd and two hotels challenged before the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) whether these claims were misleading and could be substantiated, because they understood that TripAdvisor did not verify the reviews on their website and therefore could not prove that the reviews were genuine or from real travellers. TripAdvisor said they did not claim to be 100% fraud free; no review site could guarantee that it was 100% free of fraudulent content. They said, however, that they did use advanced and highly effective fraud detection systems, and dedicated substantial resources to identifying and minimising any non-genuine content. Thus, the practical impact of small numbers of fraudulent reviews was effectively negligible. The ASA considered that consumers would understand the claims "Reviews you can trust", "... read reviews from real travellers", "TripAdvisor offers trusted advice from real travellers" and "More than 50 million honest travel reviews and opinions from real travellers around the world" to mean that they could be certain that the reviews posted on the site were from genuine travellers, and accurately reflected those travellers’ experiences of the places they visited. However, reviews could be placed on the site without any form of verification, and whilst TripAdvisor took steps to monitor and deal with suspicious activity, it was possible that non-genuine content would appear on the site undetected. As the claims implied that consumers could be assured that all review content on the TripAdvisor site was genuine, while that might not be the case, ASA concluded that the claims were misleading. TripAdvisor was told not to claim or imply that all the reviews that appeared on the website were from real travellers, or were honest, real or trusted. Find full text of ASA Adjucation of Feb. 1, 2012 here>>.  
USA: Appelate court confirms limitation of liability clauses in airline's "Conditions of Carriage"
On September 26, 2008, appellants purchased two round-trip airline tickets from American Airline’s website. The y received an “E-Ticket Confirmation” which in the bottom line of the message stated: “A summary of Terms and Conditions of travel is available by selecting the Conditions of Carriage button below.” The referenced Conditions of Carriage clearly state that the ticket and the Conditions of Carriage “constitute the contract.” On December 21, 2008, after appellants arrived at Reagan National Airport for flight 1219, they were informed that the flight was delayed. Concerned that this delay would cause them to miss their connecting flight, appellants requested a refund or seats on another flight. However, when AA represented that, despite the delay, it would provide appellants with the connecting flight from Miami to Key West, they agreed to board the delayed flight. When flight 1219 arrived at Miami International Airport, the appellants were instructed that they had fifteen minutes to traverse the airport to arrive at the departure point of their connecting flight. They ran through the airport where construction was ongoing, and they inhaled debris. When appellants arrived at the gate, they were denied entry to the flight because they did not arrive thirty minutes prior to the scheduled flight time. AA provided appellants with no substitute flight that night but paid for a hotel room and provided them with a stipend for dinner and breakfast. On December 22, 2008, appellants boarded flight 4833 from Miami and arrived in Key West later that day. Appellants filed a five count complaint in the Circuit Court for Howard County for: Negligent Misrepresentation–Booking, Intentional Misrepresentation–Booking, Negligent Misrepresentation–Airport Departure, Intentional Misrepresentation–Airport Departure , and Intentional Misrepresentation–Miami International Airport Departure. The complaint sought USD 10,000 in compensatory damages and USD 10,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff. Upon AA's motion, the court granted a summary judgement reasoning that the Conditions of Carriage precluded appellee’s liability for delays and/or missed connections, appellants had not provided any specific facts or shown that they suffered any damageas a natural and proximate consequence of AA's actions, and the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq. (the “ADA”), preempted the enforcement of Maryland tort law in this context. The appelate court held that the ADA and regulations authorized by it permitted AA to incorporate by reference the Conditions of Carriage to the “E-Ticket Confirmation” email and that they were part of the contract between appellants and AA. Pursuant to these Condtioins of carriage "no agent, employee or representative of American has authority to alter, modify or waive anyprovision of the Conditions of Carriage unless authorized in writing by a corporate officer of American." Even if an agent’s statement could be considered an oral modification of the Conditions of Carriage, such a modification would be void under thisnon-modification clause. The Conditions of Carriage also stated: “American is not responsible for or liable for failure to makeconnections, or to operate any flight according to schedule, or for a change to the schedule of any flight. Under no circumstances shall American be liable for any special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the foregoing.” and that “times shown in timetables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract”. The court concluded that as there was no genuine disputes of material fact, AA was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Case: Lavine v. American Airlines, Inc. (Md. Special App. Dec. 1, 2011); find full opinion here>>.
Germany: new reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding Reg. 261/2004
On Nov. 25, 2011, the German Amtsgericht Düsseldorf has filed a motion for preliminary ruling to the ECJ regarding the follwoing issue: Is a passenger entitled to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 if the departure time of a flight has been delayed for a period of time falling within the limits defined in Article 6(1) of the regulation, but the flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours after the scheduled time of arrival? Case C-594/11, Becker v. Air France A similar reference had been filde by the German Supreme Court (BGH) on Dec. 9, 2010.  
Canada: body height is not a disability
Malcolm Johnson filed an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) against Air Canada with respect to additional fees charged for economy class seats that afford extra leg room. Mr. Johnson submitted that, due to his height, he could not sit in a “regular seat” without endangering his health due to restricted circulation in his legs from cramped seating. Mr. Johnson requested that Air Canada eliminate the additional fees charged to persons who, due to their height, need economy class seats that afford extra leg room. In addition, Mr. Johnson asked that Air Canada reimburse him “for all previous flights where [he had to pay] for extra leg room seating”. The CTA held that Mr. Johnson did not provide evidence to demonstrate either a loss or abnormality in body structure or physiological function associated with his height. Thus CTA found that Mr. Johnson had not met his evidentiary burden of demonstrating the existence of an impairment, which was a pre-requisite to a positive finding of disability. Full text of CTA Decision No.2-AT-A-2012 of Jan. 3, 2012 in case Malcolm Johnson v. Air Canada available here>>.  
Germany: appellate court upholds denial of injunction against hotel review website
The plaintiff is operating a hotel in Berlin. The defendant is running a website provding for online booking of accomodation and travel packages. The website also has a section where users can post unattributed comments and reviews on hotels. These reviews included some negative comments on the plaintiff's hotel. Claiming that the denfendant had established a kind of 'virtual pillory' where users without any rsik and without any control could publish their comments on the plaintiff even if they actually never had been accomodated in plaintiff's hotel, the plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction to interdict the defendant the publication of any unattributed comments on plaintiff's hotel. At first instance, the Landesgericht Hamburg dismissed the claim. Upon plaintiff's appeal, the appellate court (OLG Hamburg) upheld this decision arguing that in balancing the mutual interests such claim could not be granted. The plaintiff could require the defendant to delete untrue statements on the hotel but had no right to be completely excluded form any review. Freedom of expression would also include a right to publish comments without disclosing one's name. Source: OLG Hamburg press release of Jan. 18, 2012 on judgement 5 U 51/11 of Jan. 18, 2012
USA: DOT fines Spirit Airlines over handling of disability complaints and Finnair for violating price advertising rules
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) fined Spirit Airlines USD 100,000 for failing to appropriately record and respond to complaints about the carrier’s treatment of passengers with disabilities, violating DOT’s rules implementing the Air Carrier Access Act which prohibits discrimination in air travel on the basis of disability. Under DOT’s rules, carriers must sort disability-related complaints into categories based on the type of disability and nature of the complaint, and submit an annual report to the Department on disability complaints received the previous year. Each issue raised in a complaint must be recorded separately to account for the total number of complaints a carrier receives.  The Department compiles carrier reports, publishes them on the Internet for consumers to compare, and submits them as required by Congress.  In addition, if an airline receives a written complaint alleging a violation of the Department’s disability rules, the carrier must provide a written response within 30 days that specifically discusses the complaint, gives the carrier’s view of whether a violation occurred, and states that the complaint may be referred to DOT for an investigation. However, a review of disability-related complaints received by Spirit in calendar year 2009 showed that Spirit violated the Department’s rules by failing to adequately categorize and account for all the disability-related issues that were raised, leading to an undercounting of the actual number of complaints in the carrier’s annual report to DOT. In addition, Spirit failed to provide adequate responses to a vast majority of the disability-related complaints it received in 2009 and 2010. In other matters, the DOT assessed a civil penalty of USD 35,000 against Finnair for violating federal aviation laws and the Department’s rules prohibiting deceptive price advertising in air travel. Finnair’s website violated DOT rules requiring any advertising that includes a price for air transportation to state the full price to be paid by the consumer, including all carrier-imposed surcharges as Finnair displayed three fare advertisements on its website that made no mention of additional taxes and fees that applied to these fares.  Instead, once consumers clicked on the advertisements, they were taken to a page on the carrier’s website where taxes and fees were displayed in the fine print at the bottom of the page.  In one of the three advertisements, consumers could not see the fine print unless they happened to scroll to the bottom of the page. Source: press releases DOT 14-12 and DOT 16-12 of Jan. 27, 2012 The related consent orders are available at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2012-0002.    
USA: Costa Concordia victims sue for USD 460 milion in Florida
Attorneys for six passengers of the Costa Concordia reportedly filed a law suit in Miami’s federal court  requesting USD 450 million in punitive damages and USD 10 million in compensatory damages. The complaint says plaintiffs were “in terror of catastrophic injury, death, drowning, having been placed in a situation where common sense said the vessel was sinking but the orders from the crew were to return to their cabins.” However, legal experts question whether any lawsuits filed in the U.S. will succeed because under the terms of the cruise contract signed by passengers, all lawsuits seeking damages must be filed in Genova, Italy, where Costa is based. Source: Travel Pulse; find article here>>.
USA: New York law firms file class action against Costa
As reported by "Travel Weekly", New York-based personal-injury law firm Proner and Proner said it joined forces with Codacons, the Italian consumer-protection organization, in filing a class action against Costa Cruises. A second New York law firm, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, also will represent passengers in the class action. Proner said that the suit will seek at least USD 160,000 for each passenger who was aboard the ship at the time of the Jan. 13 disaster near the Italian island of Giglio. Source: Travel Weekly; find article here>>.
Canada: change in airline pet policies ordered by CTA
Upon complaints by three passengers who all suffer from severe cat allergies, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) has ruled that Air Canada, Jazz and WestJet need to amend their policies with respect to the carriage of cats as carry-on baggage in the aircraft cabin as to include either: a ban on cats carried as pets in the aircraft cabin in which a person with a disabling cat allergy is travelling; or the following measures: air circulation/ventilation systems using HEPA filters or which provide 100 percent unrecirculated fresh air; and, a seating separation which is confirmed prior to boarding the flight and which provides a minimum of five rows between persons with a disability as a result of their allergy to cats and cats carried as pets in the cabin. CTA Decision No. 430-AT-A-2011 of Dec. 15, 2011 available here>>.
X
You may login with either your assigned username or your e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.
Loading