Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

When Canceling a Flight, Do You Get a Cash Refund or Credit for Future Travel?

Last week, the federal Department of Transportation proposed revised regulations to update airline refund rules. (See news story.)

In particular, much of the news coverage talked about airlines having to provide vouchers for future travel to passengers. Well, if you paid for your ticket by credit card or with cash, do you really want a voucher for future travel rather than a full refund? And whose choice is it for cash back or future credit?

It all depends on whom is doing the canceling. The proposed regulations add a new rule about what happens when the passenger cancels a reservation on a nonrefundable ticket because of serious communicable illness (and not the common cold).

*MOUSE PRINT:

A ticketed passenger would be entitled to a non-expiring travel voucher but not a refund if he or she is advised:

…not to travel by air because the consumer has or may have contracted a serious communicable disease as defined in 14 CFR 260.2, and the consumer’s condition is such that traveling on a commercial flight would pose a direct threat to the health of others.

Proof of a public health emergency, government restriction on travel, or a letter from a medical professional documenting the serious medical condition that could be contagious to others when traveling may be required by the airline.

And here’s a little wrinkle that has not been publicized: The airline can also deduct a service fee for processing the voucher if the amount of the fee was disclosed at the time the ticket was purchased.

Now what happens if it is the airline that cancels or substantially changes/delays a flight? The proposed regulation says that a delay of three hours or more or an outright cancellation qualifies you for a “cash” or credit card refund.

*MOUSE PRINT:

(5) … [provide] prompt refunds, within 7 days of a refund request as required by 14 CFR 374.3 for credit card purchases, and within 20 days after receiving a refund request for cash or check or other forms of purchases. Carriers may choose to provide the refunds in the original form of payment …, or in another form of payment that is cash equivalent as defined in 14 CFR 260.2. Carriers may offer travel credits, vouchers, or other compensation in lieu of refunds, but carriers first must inform consumers that they are entitled to a refund. Carriers must clearly disclose any material restrictions, conditions, or limitations on these compensations they offer, so consumers can make informed choices about the refund or other compensation that would best suit their needs.

As noted above, the airline can try to offer you a voucher for future travel in these circumstances, but they have to tell you that you are entitled to money back instead. You don’t have to accept a voucher. You can demand a refund.

The proposed rules are subject to public hearings and comment and won’t go into effect for some time.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The No Tequila in “Lime-A-Rita” Case Nears Settlement

In May, we reported that a tentative settlement was reached in a case against Anheuser-Busch for marketing its Rita brand of drinks like Lime-A-Rita, which did not contain tequila, Ritas Sangria Spritz, which did not contain red wine, and Ritas Mohito Fizz when in fact it did not contain rum.

The only disclosure about this was on the bottom of the carton, where consumers are not likely to look nor understand that fact based on the wording they used.

Lime-a-Rita

Now the parties have reach a more specific agreement.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Settlement Class members may seek a refund for a maximum total refund of $21.25 per Household with Proof of Purchase. Settlement Class members may seek a maximum total refund of $9.75 per Household without Proof of Purchase.

A-B has also agreed to make changes to the marketing, labeling, and packaging of the Products, including the addition of the word Malt Beverage on the consumer facing panels of the Product packaging, and clear disclaimers on the website noting that each of the Products Does not contain distilled spirits.

One New Label Samplenew label

So the company will modify their labeling and pay ten or twenty dollars to affected consumers. But honestly, the mock-up of this part of their new label doesn’t seem to communicate an awful lot new in a conspicuous manner.

The judge still has to approve the settlement. We’ll provide a link in Consumer World to the claim form at that time.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

HP Sued Over Printers That Won’t Scan or Fax When Ink Is Low

Two consumers who bought Hewlett-Packard (HP) all-in-one printers are suing the company after they discovered that their machines would not scan or fax when it was low on ink or empty.

HP all-in-one

Of course, neither scanning nor faxing requires any ink in order to accomplish those tasks.

This case is essentially similar to a complaint filed against Canon last year where a consumer claimed that his printer stopped scanning when his ink cartridges were low or empty. [See story.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

The lawsuit against HP claims:

6. What HP fails to disclose is that, if even one of the ink cartridges is too low or empty, the scanning function on the “all-in-one” printer will be disabled and will not work as advertised (hereinafter, the “Design Flaw”).

7. None of HP’s advertising or marketing materials disclose the basic fact that its All-in-One Printers do not scan documents when the devices have low or empty ink cartridges.

12. HP’s intent is clear, namely, to have their multi-function devices revert to an inoperable “error state” so that a large subset of those multi-function device purchasers will purchase additional overpriced and unnecessary ink cartridges in order to be able to scan and to fax documents. The end goal is to increase the sales of one HP’s largest profit makers, ink.

So the consumers are suing for misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unfair or deceptive practices.

A related issue alleges that some HP all-in-one printers won’t scan when their ink cartridges have plenty of ink but have expired. That was reported by two of our readers last year but is not raised in this lawsuit.

Share this story:

 

ADV