NCL sued over restaurants' booking non-avaiability

[tchix]

I'm sure you're right that, legally, a company cannot mislead in its advertising but to the average joe this is splitting hairs, a game of semantics. "Misleading" then needs to be defined, which varies depending on the judge hearing the case. Companies typically walk a fine line between exaggeration and misleading. The problem is no one can definitively point to where that line is.

 

And that is exactly why this lawsuit has a chance of going forward- and the reason why this lawsuit that seems stupid to you and me actually is a bigger deal for NCL- the more grey areas in the law, the more likely NCL will have to settle. if the plaintiff can show that the average consumer would have the same expectations she had based on what NCL said, and that that expectation wasn't met, then she could win...

 

(oh, and no one can definitively point to where the line is, but a very many companies take great pains to stay on the right side of that line-- believe me, my clients spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on this very issue, to make sure their advertising does not meet the legal definition of misleading or false).

[Cuizer2]

In my case, even though I was almost first in line every day for reservations, there were very few spots available in Teppanyaki on Pearl towards the end of the cruise.

 

Teppanyaki has very limited seating. I too had to change my first choice to my second choice on the Star when I went to Teppanyaki. The last three times (all on different days of the week) that I went to Olive Garden the wait was so long I ended up going to Black Angus about two blocks away.

 

The Olive Garden ads I see don't show anyone waiting in line.

[johnql]

And that is exactly why this lawsuit has a chance of going forward- and the reason why this lawsuit that seems stupid to you and me actually is a bigger deal for NCL- the more grey areas in the law, the more likely NCL will have to settle. if the plaintiff can show that the average consumer would have the same expectations she had based on what NCL said, and that that expectation wasn't met, then she could win...

 

(oh, and no one can definitively point to where the line is, but a very many companies take great pains to stay on the right side of that line-- believe me, my clients spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on this very issue, to make sure their advertising does not meet the legal definition of misleading or false).

There's no doubt that the lawsuit has a chance of going forward. We've all seen plenty of lawsuits that, on their surface, appear frivolous but nevertheless proceed to verdict. I'm hoping, however, that the judge in this instance exercises common sense and throws it out.

[Urban trekker]

"Now that is a lawsuit that I would love to see happen"

 

That lawsuit should be settled in November?

 

Now how do we sue ourselves for not keeping our New Year's resolutions?

 

As for Teppanyaki - it holds what 20 people at most for what 2 sittings a night - so 40 people a night or 280 people on a 7 day cruise - of course not all of the 2800 people on a ship are going to be able to eat there and what the difference between the treatment that first class passengers on a airplane get in comparison to regular fares and those who pay more for a cruise or are a frequent fliers/cruisers.

 

Will let you know next year as I move up to Gold status for my cruises.

 

Cheers

 

Dennis

[2Cruise4Ever]

[quote=Urban trekker;14460182

As for Teppanyaki - it holds what 20 people at most for what 2 sittings a night - so 40 people a night or 280 people on a 7 day cruise - of course not all of the 2800 people on a ship are going to be able to eat there and what the difference between the treatment that first class passengers on a airplane get in comparison to regular fares and those who pay more for a cruise or are a frequent fliers/cruisers.

 

Dennis

 

Dennis, on the Dawn, Teppanyaki holds a total of 24 (if memory serves) and has 3 seatings per night. So, getting reservations there is very, very difficult. The early bird definitely gets the worm!

[VoyageVirgin]

Teppanyaki has very limited seating. I too had to change my first choice to my second choice on the Star when I went to Teppanyaki. The last three times (all on different days of the week) that I went to Olive Garden the wait was so long I ended up going to Black Angus about two blocks away.

 

The Olive Garden ads I see don't show anyone waiting in line.

 

We missed the BBQ'd chicken and ribs as well (Jade TA) so you weren't alone there. Transition is a beggar at times. ;)

 

As for the expectations of the lady filing the suit - thanks, with NCL tied up with court costs I may have to pay more for my cruise next time to offset you're warped scense of thinking.

[Cuizer2]

Dennis, on the Dawn, Teppanyaki holds a total of 24 (if memory serves) and has 3 seatings per night. So, getting reservations there is very, very difficult. The early bird definitely gets the worm!

 

I don't recall any worms. Are you referring to the noodles?

 

The Jade has four tables holding ten each. Each time slot is 90 minutes. There were four seatings: 5:00, 6:30, 8:00 & 9:30. That adds up to 160 per night.

 

However, the first time I went there were only two tables being used and the second time I went there was only one table being used.

[Baitman19]

Here's a link to the lawyer's website. He makes his living out of suing cruise lines.

 

http://paulhoffmanlaw.com/index.html

 

Happy Cruising

[nlt46]

I didn't know that there was a lawyer that had that speciality. Thanks for the info. I still learn something everyday, I guess. Nancy

[watchdiva]

ROTFLMAO!

 

Absolutely unbelievable!

[2Cruise4Ever]

I don't recall any worms. Are you referring to the noodles?

 

The Jade has four tables holding ten each. Each time slot is 90 minutes. There were four seatings: 5:00, 6:30, 8:00 & 9:30. That adds up to 160 per night.

 

However, the first time I went there were only two tables being used and the second time I went there was only one table being used.

 

I laughed out loud with that one Cuizer2!!! Thanks for picking up my afternoon!

[CanadianTwosome]

I agree that this isn't necessarily the best use of resources (this kind of lawsuit). But to play devil's advocate (since everyone else has the exact same opinion), it seems like everyone is saying "as long as you are flexible, you can get reservations- it might not be the time or place that you want, but you can get some reservations." Now, anyone think that is exactly what NCL promises in it's ads? I just watched one that said: "eat where you want, when you want, with whom you want." Now being an avid reader of these boards, I know what that means, that reservations and flexibility are required etc etc etc. But it seems that everyone here also agrees that NCL is promising a little more in its ads that in can deliver- no one seems to think it is reasonable to expect to eat "where you want, when you want," at least when it comes to the specialty rest's. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I think part of this has to do with NCL overreaching with its marketing, just a tiny bit, without making sure it has capacity for everyone to take advantage of what it is selling.... Not sure it merits a class action lawsuit, but I do see why some people who are new to NCL get frustrated that they aren't getting what they thought they were...

 

[dons flame-resistant apparel]

 

No flames, and there's always room for a devil's advocate to stimulate more discussion. What you're saying isn't a new idea, but it is a particularly literal one. If all advertisers were limited to stating the truth in absolutely certain, unmistakable, clear terms, I daresay commercials would be even more unbearable than they already are. All advertisers take liberties with semantics and suggestion. If a lawsuit such as this has merit based on the potential for believing NCL's ads are gospel, then I've got a few women's hygiene products I'd like to sue... most of them tell me that if I use their product I can do anything I want to do... and goddamn it, no matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to fly. :p

[BeachBumMama]

If all advertisers were limited to stating the truth in absolutely certain, unmistakable, clear terms, I daresay commercials would be even more unbearable than they already are.

LOVE all the pharmaceutical ads. 2 minutes of... Do not take if... yada, yada, yada. Why should NCL have to include disclaimers of... Eating when you want, where you want, with whom you want, does not include specialty restaurant in that concept which you must make reservations for. As I posted previously, taking those restaurants out of the equation because they are OPTIONS for dining elsewhere, their advertising is not misleading.

 

Sure, sometimes during spring break and busy cruises one has to be more flexible in times but that's given with the territory no matter what the situation on any cruise line. Excursions fill up faster. Tenders take longer. Pools filled to capacity and chair hogs out in full force. Should people be able to sue for those reasons as well? We've all seen empty pool chairs on the commercials, yeah, like that happens.:rolleyes: The commercial of the young girl finally smiling on an RCCL cruise, should they also show the people who weren't able to get on a Sea Doo because the excursion was packed? A disclaimer for all.... we can not guarantee you'll get the excursion you want, or that you'll enjoy the Caribbean as much as some of our guests, or that you'll be able to get a seat at our fantastic show unless you show up at a certain time... yada, yada, yada. And the list goes on and on.

 

Again, the basic concept of their advertising is true. No one is forced to eat at a certain time, at a certain place, with certain people. Period.

 

And dang it, I can't fly either.:p

[smeyer418]

I guess what she expected was that NCL would put in the brochure that reservations were not always available. DO you think this needs to be in the brochure? I don't. Its like saying good weather isn't guaranteed.

[mbisson]

DO you think this needs to be in the brochure? I don't. Its like saying good weather isn't guaranteed.

 

Weather not guaranteed?

What you talkin' 'bout Willis???

[Tatka]

Perhaps because Americans make up 85% of the cruising passengers.

 

This will change soon. I am from FSU and I see how many people are cruising now.. They are paying much higher rates to do this. Same with Europeans, asians.

 

What I ment was, there is enough economical problems to worsen the situation with stupid lawsuites.

[newmexicoNita]

Originally Posted by tchix View Post

I agree that this isn't necessarily the best use of resources (this kind of lawsuit). But to play devil's advocate (since everyone else has the exact same opinion), it seems like everyone is saying "as long as you are flexible, you can get reservations- it might not be the time or place that you want, but you can get some reservations." Now, anyone think that is exactly what NCL promises in it's ads? I just watched one that said: "eat where you want, when you want, with whom you want." Now being an avid reader of these boards, I know what that means, that reservations and flexibility are required etc etc etc. But it seems that everyone here also agrees that NCL is promising a little more in its ads that in can deliver- no one seems to think it is reasonable to expect to eat "where you want, when you want," at least when it comes to the specialty rest's. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I think part of this has to do with NCL overreaching with its marketing, just a tiny bit, without making sure it has capacity for everyone to take advantage of what it is selling.... Not sure it merits a class action lawsuit, but I do see why some people who are new to NCL get frustrated that they aren't getting what they thought they were...

 

[dons flame-resistant apparel]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sounds like Nita is agreeing with the person filing the lawsuit, as she feels she was mislead!

 

I'm a diehard NCL and FreeStyle fan, and certainly feel the lawsuit is not worthy and should be thrown out. That being said, I do feel sorry for the many passengers who do not get to enjoy the Specialty restaurants, especially once they decide to make a reservation and can not get one. We've been fortunate on all of our NCL cruises to most always get the time and place that we want, but credit that to experience and good planning. I was disappointed when NCL decided to allow everyone to be able to make reservations for their entire cruise once boarding the ship, as it meant we had to do more advance planning than we did before. Our style has been to plan our specialty nights around things like our in port activities, Stardust shows, and at sea activities like martini clinics. We realize a 5:30 pm dinner may not be that good of an idea following a 3:00 pm martini clinic!! We were also very happy when they went back to the old policy for making reservations, allowing for more flexibility during the cruise for making changes to our initial "gameplan". Their recent price expansion and increases will also make it a bit easier to access the Specialty restaurants.

 

There was one cruise when we met a couple who mid cruise decided to make a reservation for the last night at Cagney's, and found that it was booked solid as well as all other Specialties. Since we already had a reservation at Cagney's that night, we checked and found that we had been penciled in for a table for four, so we were able to bring the couple along with us. They were very grateful for the opportunity, and truely enjoyed their dining experience at Cagney's.

 

Though I do not feel the lawsuit is justified, I do believe the complaint is legitimate. The blame should be shared not only with NCL's advertising which would appear to make it simple to dine where and when you would like, but also the passengers who also must accept responsibility for not doing their homework. After all, the same problems could occur in your own hometown when you try to make reservation at a familiar restaurant. I feel we are all fortunate to have come across this website to enhance our experience and educate ourselves on the do's and don'ts related to cruising.

wow, I certainly am not agreeing with the gal filing the law suite but I do think the advertising may cause some confusion for those who take everything the read and see to literally. I certainly think the law suite is a joke....

 

Nita

[2Cruise4Ever]

Weather not guaranteed?

What you talkin' 'bout Willis???

 

Hey, I want compensation for the 1 hour of thunderstorms we experienced upon sail away from NYC last year! We could barely see Lady Liberty!!! Do you think this lawyer dude will take my case???? :D

[mbisson]

Hey, I want compensation for the 1 hour of thunderstorms we experienced upon sail away from NYC last year! We could barely see Lady Liberty!!! Do you think this lawyer dude will take my case???? :D

 

I've a funny feeling that particular lawyer isn't picky at all!

 

Probably works for the firm of "Dewey, Cheatem & Howe"

[salty dingo]

OMG! Since when does someone have a "right" to obtain a reservation.

 

Did this person somehow starve on the cruise ship? Did they sue because they had to save their money and eat at the free restaurant?

 

I am quite sure this is a case of an attorney taking a wild swing hoping they might hit a home run and win a lot of money for themselves and the poor, abused, mislead, and downtrodden cruise passengers.

 

Let's hope this one goes down in ridicule... it deserves to!!!

[BarbCT605]

Probably works for the firm of "Dewey, Cheatem & Howe"

ynuk, ynuk, ynuk,ynuk :D

[Cuizer2]

Everyone is looking at the merits of this case. Nobody seems to be looking at the damages. The following is from the link in post number one ...

 

A California woman sued NCL, alleging the Miami-based cruise operator failed to disclose it may be impossible to get reservations at specialty restaurants for those passengers not booked in the upscale cabins that get priority access.

 

The suit filed in U.S. District Court Monday by Fort Lauderdale attorney Paul M. Hoffman seeks refunds for the cruise and incidental costs for Eva Gularte, her sister and mother, for a voyage on the Norwegian Star, plus attorney's fees. It seeks class-action status for all NCL passengers who had similar problems in the past three years.

 

So, what are the damages? Did the person go hungry? No mention of this. Was the person able to eat at all in the specialty restaurants? No information on this either. The lawsuit seeks refunds for the cruise and incidental costs. What incidental costs? Attorney fees? I have not reviewed my contract, but is there an attorney fee provision in the contract?

 

Lets look at the damages. I assume these people were able to eat, just not in the restaurant they wanted to eat in. Damages in this case would be small to non-existent. I would say something in the range of a few dollars per meal at most. And the damages would be zero if we are talking about the extra cost restaurants where the family didn't pay the extra fees because they could not eat there.

 

I don't think this is going to get class action status because not everyone is in the same boat. Some will have gotten the reservations they wanted and several more will state that they had no interest in eating at the specialty restaurants.

 

To say that this family deserves $20 total per night ($160 for the three of them for the eight days) WITHOUT regarding to liability (the merits) is stretching things a bit. Assuming there is liability (I'm not saying there is liability. I'm just evaluating the potential damages - not the merits.), I would put a value of $100 total, for all three.

 

Personally I would be reluctant to even bring a small claims lawsuit for such a low value case, let alone a Federal case. And if I was an attorney, I would not be willing to take on such a small value case.

 

Nonetheless, this case is going to cost NCL some money to defend. NCL cannot just ask the judge to dismiss the case. NCL must make a motion with the court to have the case dismissed. As the moving party, NCL must prove the case has no merit in order to get a judge to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs would have the burden of proof if the case were to go to trial.

 

Since NCL would have the burden of proof if it were to bring a summary judgment motion, NCL would have to conduct discovery. This takes time and defense attorneys bill by the hour (where plaintiff attorneys take a percentage of the amount their client recovers).

 

Issues of what was promised, what were the reasonable expectations of the passengers and what was in fact delivered will have to be examined. If there is any question of fact, then the judge wouldn't grant a summary judgment motion and ultimately the case would go to trail.

 

Do you remember the $54,000,000 pants? The legal fees almost bankrupted the dry cleaner. Here is a little blurb about it ...

 

As I reported last month, Judge

Pearson successfully took advantage of the District's bizarre consumer

protection laws to unleash such a bevy of legal action against Custom

Cleaners that they were virtually torted into bankruptcy. So vexed were

they, in fact, by his punitive onslaught that the Chungs offered to

settle for as much as $12,000 and contemplated a move back to Korea.

Lucky for them, Pearson has relented and, in a move reminiscent of

Ghengis Khan at the dinner table, graciously reduced his suit by $13

million.

 

http://www.sodahead.com/poll/6021/

 

I would still rank this ahead of the $54,000,000 pants. So don't think that just because everyone on CC thinks this lawsuit is frivolous that the judge is going to throw it out.

[can'twaittogoagain]

Pathetic.

 

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but: After I linked up to the Herald's column from the OP's original post, I decided to read some of the responses....

 

Look at this response to the Herald's column about the lawsuit I copied/pasted in:

 

"I must say, I found this link over on Cruise Critic and as usual the cheerleaders over there are out in numbers defending Norwegian. This cruise line has now dropped below Carnival as the bottom feeder of cruise lines. Now matter how hard they try, they still can't get it right."

 

Dropped below Carnival? BOTTOM FEEDER? I wish people could just say, "Tried it...wasn't my cup of tea (and no, I'm not from England, I'm from Indiana) but to each his own. Vicious, they are.

 

Of course we're defending NCL... for the most part we aren't trolls. We like it or we wouldn't be hanging out on the NCL forum.

[salty dingo]

I am no cheerleader, and am not defending the cruise line. I am just making fun of a person who thinks NCL had a duty to inform her that the restaurants may be hard to get a reservation for.

 

I wonder where, in the cruise contract, the cruise line agreed to guarantee every passenger who wants it a spot at their restaurant of choice?

 

Let's face it... this person and her lawyer could not care less that they did not get a reservation. They are opportunists who see a chance to make some money. Plain and simple, just like business person swooping down on a new opportunity - the goal is to make money, not to right a wrong.

 

I hope that person makes no money at this.

[Cuizer2]

I wonder where, in the cruise contract, the cruise line agreed to guarantee every passenger who wants it a spot at their restaurant of choice?

 

I hope that person makes no money at this.

 

I would think the focus of the plaintiffs' attention will be the implied promise in the advertising and not any express promises in the written contract.

 

The "gentleman" with the $54,000,000 pants went after the implied promise in the advertising, not after some express promise in a written claim check.