Bronx man sues NBC Universal over ‘unlimited’ soda refills at theme park

[Hikergirl]

“He would not have been willing to pay the sum he paid had he known that the Products did not provide unlimited refills and were mislabeled and falsely advertised,” the suit reads.

So, he needed to quench his thirst less than every 10 minutes. Had he had known he wouldn't have been able to he would have paid individually for each drink?
I almost believe that, almost.

 

[Toolulu22]

Read what I previously wrote and go to their website. While the meal plan w/ soda does have a disclaimer on the same page the drink only option (which it sounds like was purchased) specifically does not have the limitation noted.



Its not about drinking 768oz of soda, its about the limited window usage where you possibly drink a portion of the drink when getting food and then trying to top off before leaving the drink station. Have you ever drank a 20oz soda or sports drink? Well you would be over the limit in that circumstance unless you wait 10 mins to refill even after having a couple sips.



Because these things don't happen all the time? You need to get "dumb" lawsuits like this and class action ones to actually make changes unfortunately. Its similar to my recent issues with a Samsung Gear Fit. My wife didn't even swim with it but supposedly it stopped working because of "water damage" which is not covered by their warranty even though Samsung states you can swim laps with it. I am not going to take them to court but I am more than happy if someone else does or others like them that falsely market their products.

These type of lawsuits are becoming more common too. I get notification every couple of months that I can choose to participate in a class action law suit for one thing or another. Recently, I received a check in the mail for about $100 for one of the law suits. I didn’t even remember what it was for when I received the check and I questioned if the check was real. But, it cleared.

As much as its true that companies often do have their policies listed somewhere, it is often hidden or glossed over. Case in point are those pharma commercials where the side effects are mentioned at warp speed at the very end of the commercial or in teeny tiny print in a two page spread. The info is technically available, but you are not being encouraged to ‘see’ it. Then when people claim they didn’t ‘see’ it, the company can say- well it was there.

 

[FrankDIS72]

As much as its true that companies often do have their policies listed somewhere, it is often hidden or glossed over. Case in point are those pharma commercials where the side effects are mentioned at warp speed at the very end of the commercial or in teeny tiny print in a two page spread. The info is technically available, but you are not being encouraged to ‘see’ it. Then when people claim they didn’t ‘see’ it, the company can say- well it was there.

"Small print equals large risk."

 

[fla4fun]

Read what I previously wrote and go to their website. While the meal plan w/ soda does have a disclaimer on the same page the drink only option (which it sounds like was purchased) specifically does not have the limitation noted.

I agree with what you posted in regards to the website, but what they may have to prove is what terms and conditions were posted at the point of sale. Was there a sign that simply told people to go to the website for terms? Was there a sign with one or the other of the website terms? Was there a sign with different terms altogether? Or was there any sign at all and Universal was relying on TM to give the info? Maybe the terms print on the receipt? If Universal had the information readily available without having to log into a website, they could win. Not saying they will, but without all the facts, that possibility can’t be ruled out.

 

[damo]

Read what I previously wrote and go to their website. While the meal plan w/ soda does have a disclaimer on the same page the drink only option (which it sounds like was purchased) specifically does not have the limitation noted.



Its not about drinking 768oz of soda, its about the limited window usage where you possibly drink a portion of the drink when getting food and then trying to top off before leaving the drink station. Have you ever drank a 20oz soda or sports drink? Well you would be over the limit in that circumstance unless you wait 10 mins to refill even after having a couple sips.



Because these things don't happen all the time? You need to get "dumb" lawsuits like this and class action ones to actually make changes unfortunately. Its similar to my recent issues with a Samsung Gear Fit. My wife didn't even swim with it but supposedly it stopped working because of "water damage" which is not covered by their warranty even though Samsung states you can swim laps with it. I am not going to take them to court but I am more than happy if someone else does or others like them that falsely market their products.

It does have the disclaimer on the purchase of just the drink cup ... https://www.universalorlando.com/web-store/en/us/add-ons

I wouldn't be surprised if it is also in the fine print with your email.

 

[sethschroeder]

It does have the disclaimer on the purchase of just the drink cup ... https://www.universalorlando.com/web-store/en/us/add-ons

I wouldn't be surprised if it is also in the fine print with your email.

On their website which I previously linked it didn't outline the limit or requirement it only made the distinction for the meal plan not just the drink plan. So you can see why Universal needs to be taken to court. I shouldn't need to recheck terms in multiple places and then verify what is actually posted on your own site is your actual rule.

 

[CAPSLOCK]

Wonder if he went up and asked in person for a refill, or just started complaining to a lawyer. If there is a line to use the machine & you have to wait, is that also considered "limiting" you?

 

[Lynne G]

Yeah, same with all day dining. Sea World offers that, but qualifies it meaning once evenly hour. Do not see the difference. While I agree unlimited sounds like anytime, most offering the free style cups have limits on length between fills.

I hope the reasonable person if there is a jury, sees how time wasting his lawsuit is.

 

[damo]

On their website which I previously linked it didn't outline the limit or requirement it only made the distinction for the meal plan not just the drink plan. So you can see why Universal needs to be taken to court. I shouldn't need to recheck terms in multiple places and then verify what is actually posted on your own site is your actual rule.

But when you click on "buy now" on the Freestyle cup alone on the link you gave, you are taken to the page I linked which has the terms. You have to go through the page I linked in order to purchase. The page I linked gives the details and then actually sends you to another page which again has the details. So the details are actually there twice before you purchase. Is it a bad website? Yes, but the terms are there to read before you purchase.

I have no idea about the terms when you purchase in the park but I don't think the website is lacking in terms.

 

[jeff_h]

 

[DisneyMom93]

But when you click on "buy now" on the Freestyle cup alone on the link you gave, you are taken to the page I linked which has the terms. You have to go through the page I linked in order to purchase. The page I linked gives the details and then actually sends you to another page which again has the details. So the details are actually there twice before you purchase. Is it a bad website? Yes, but the terms are there to read before you purchase.

I have no idea about the terms when you purchase in the park but I don't think the website is lacking in terms.

Did he buy it through the website? How do we know he didn’t buy it at the park and there’s nothing to read? I don’t know what happens if you buy it in the park. Just asking.

 

[DisneyMom93]

The article states he bought the cup in the park. So no website to read... not sure how you know the details when you purchase limitations in the park. Anyone?

 

[nerdboyrockstar]

Honestly, I'm kinda with this guy. I hate to say it but I really felt the penny pinching from Universal when it comes to soda in the parks. A single regular size "no refill" soda is currently $4.19, while the "unlimited" was $16.99. No, it does not explicitly state the 10-minute window anywhere.

I was at The Burger Digs when I got my first cup of soda and drank it as I was waiting for my food. Went back to get the food when it was called, went back to refill and the machine advised the waiting period. I asked the employee nearby to override (I was alone if there was any doubt of sharing) and they could not. I asked for the manager and advised I needed a refund for the cup or the food or both as I was not going to wait for my food to get cold in order to be able to have a drink while I eat, especially after paying $17. They obliged.

Things like this are what keep Universal from reaching that Disney level of service. I've always hated the comparison but in this case, it fits: it's so Six Flags of them.

 

[Someone28624]

Honestly, I'm kinda with this guy. I hate to say it but I really felt the penny pinching from Universal when it comes to soda in the parks. A single regular size "no refill" soda is currently $4.19, while the "unlimited" was $16.99. No, it does not explicitly state the 10-minute window anywhere.

I was at The Burger Digs when I got my first cup of soda and drank it as I was waiting for my food. Went back to get the food when it was called, went back to refill and the machine advised the waiting period. I asked the employee nearby to override (I was alone if there was any doubt of sharing) and they could not. I asked for the manager and advised I needed a refund for the cup or the food or both as I was not going to wait for my food to get cold in order to be able to have a drink while I eat, especially after paying $17. They obliged.

Things like this are what keep Universal from reaching that Disney level of service. I've always hated the comparison but in this case, it fits: it's so Six Flags of them.

I've only been to Universal once, so I'm not the most qualified to speak on this, but at Universal I felt the nickel and diming way more than I ever have at Disney, which is interesting considering it's Disney that has the reputation for squeezing every penny out of people. I suspect some of Disney's reputation is just due to more people going there.

 

[DisneyMom93]

All they need to state is “free refills.” There was no need to state “unlimited free refills.”

 

[mamapenguin]

People are expected to have at least minimal common sense. I sincerely hope he loses and is ordered to pay Universal’s expenses incurred to defend itself.

 

[DisneyMom93]

People are expected to have at least minimal common sense. I sincerely hope he loses and is ordered to pay Universal’s expenses incurred to defend itself.

I don't think common sense would tell you that "unlimited refills" actually means there is a limit. It is actually limited to 6 refills per hour. You can't dispute that no matter how you try.

 

[mamapenguin]

I don't think common sense would tell you that "unlimited refills" actually means there is a limit. It is actually limited to 6 refills per hour. You can't dispute that no matter how you try.

As long as it is posted somewhere, they can dispute it. This is precisely how return policies and other terms and conditions work. Have a great day.

 

[Kaleidodad]

I just don't see an issue with the word "unlimited" here, since the actual limit pertains to time, not refills. These class action plaintiffs might as well sue the rotation of the earth for only allowing them 24 hours of pop-refilling with their purchase.

 

[Kaleidodad]

FWIW, Mr. Arnaud lost a separate class action suit just last month, against Subway for sending him too many text messages: in that case he put forth a similar argument that he was not informed of the applicable terms of service. Also FWIW, Arnaud is a paralegal at the law firm that has filed both of these suits.

https://casetext.com/case/arnaud-v-doctors-assocs-inc