Good reminder not to share your travel info on the internet

[BlerkOne]

13 minutes ago, aborgman said:

 

The original verdict was $2+ million. It was reduced to $800K. They settled for something less than that, but that + lawyers + bad publicity cost way more than the $20K they could have settled for.

 

Carnival loses nothing giving her a refund. They re-sold the room.

 

...but bad publicity has a cost. Smart businesses are pragmatic. Doesn't matter whether you're right - you settle if that is cheaper than "winning".

 

 

 

McDonald's had a history of hot coffee complaints and their own research showed most people were going to drink it while in the car. It also spawned many copycat lawsuits. Truly the poster child of absurd awards of damages. MCD stock in the 90s was in the teens. It is now around $240. They should spill more coffee. It can be argued that no publicity is bad publicity.

 

We have no idea what Carnival did with the room or if there has been any impact.

 

This conversation is non-productive, just like the one sided conversation by someone who has had far more than her 5 minutes of undeserved fame.

 

 

[cruisinqt]

52 minutes ago, aborgman said:

 

The original verdict was $2+ million. It was reduced to $800K. They settled for something less than that, but that + lawyers + bad publicity cost way more than the $20K they could have settled for.

 

Carnival loses nothing giving her a refund. They re-sold the room.

 

...but bad publicity has a cost. Smart businesses are pragmatic. Doesn't matter whether you're right - you settle if that is cheaper than "winning".

 

 

 

Carnival is following the standard of practice in the travel industry which is to offer a credit but no cash when there are unresolved issues. The airlines always want to offer credits instead of cash, so do hotels, resorts, etc. Even though I’m not a fan of receiving a credit instead of cash I acknowledge it’s all I’ll usually get out of the travel industry when issues arise. I’m sure these large corporations have weighed the pros and cons before implementing this type of policy. It must be the better choice or they’d change their policy.

 

I worked for a large corporation for many years and when issues arose and lawsuits were threatened they never made cash offers regardless of the situation. I was chatting with a guy in the legal department and he said when they stopped offering immediate cash settlements, their lawsuits dropped in half. He said it’s because big corporations get lots of frivolous lawsuits with no merit just because people think they’ll offer a quick cash settlement to make them go away. But once a corporation gets a reputation of never offering money up front or settling quickly, the lawsuits disappear. So yes, initially the cost of the lawsuit along with its bad publicity looks like a bad choice, but if you look at the whole picture and how it effects the amount of lawsuits they get then their choice is understandable. Because they save money over the long run from the hoards of scammers looking for a quick buck. 

[BlerkOne]

2 hours ago, cruisinqt said:

Carnival is following the standard of practice in the travel industry which is to offer a credit but no cash when there are unresolved issues. The airlines always want to offer credits instead of cash, so do hotels, resorts, etc. Even though I’m not a fan of receiving a credit instead of cash I acknowledge it’s all I’ll usually get out of the travel industry when issues arise. I’m sure these large corporations have weighed the pros and cons before implementing this type of policy. It must be the better choice or they’d change their policy.

 

I worked for a large corporation for many years and when issues arose and lawsuits were threatened they never made cash offers regardless of the situation. I was chatting with a guy in the legal department and he said when they stopped offering immediate cash settlements, their lawsuits dropped in half. He said it’s because big corporations get lots of frivolous lawsuits with no merit just because people think they’ll offer a quick cash settlement to make them go away. But once a corporation gets a reputation of never offering money up front or settling quickly, the lawsuits disappear. So yes, initially the cost of the lawsuit along with its bad publicity looks like a bad choice, but if you look at the whole picture and how it effects the amount of lawsuits they get then their choice is understandable. Because they save money over the long run from the hoards of scammers looking for a quick buck. 

Ambulance chasers aren't interested in a percentage of an FCC which has no cash value and isn't transferable, anyway.

[aborgman]

17 hours ago, cruisinqt said:

Carnival is following the standard of practice in the travel industry which is to offer a credit but no cash when there are unresolved issues. The airlines always want to offer credits instead of cash, so do hotels, resorts, etc. Even though I’m not a fan of receiving a credit instead of cash I acknowledge it’s all I’ll usually get out of the travel industry when issues arise. I’m sure these large corporations have weighed the pros and cons before implementing this type of policy. It must be the better choice or they’d change their policy.

 

I worked for a large corporation for many years and when issues arose and lawsuits were threatened they never made cash offers regardless of the situation. I was chatting with a guy in the legal department and he said when they stopped offering immediate cash settlements, their lawsuits dropped in half. He said it’s because big corporations get lots of frivolous lawsuits with no merit just because people think they’ll offer a quick cash settlement to make them go away. But once a corporation gets a reputation of never offering money up front or settling quickly, the lawsuits disappear. So yes, initially the cost of the lawsuit along with its bad publicity looks like a bad choice, but if you look at the whole picture and how it effects the amount of lawsuits they get then their choice is understandable. Because they save money over the long run from the hoards of scammers looking for a quick buck. 

 

The standard in the industry is changing though... The airlines are much more limited in their ability to give credits instead of refunds since COVID.

 

As for not settling lawsuits - I tend to agree with not offering money right away.

 

I'm talking about BEFORE lawsuits, and before media attention. Pay people off before a lawsuit or any publicity ever exists is often your best answer.

[cruisinqt]

2 hours ago, aborgman said:

 

The standard in the industry is changing though... The airlines are much more limited in their ability to give credits instead of refunds since COVID.

 

As for not settling lawsuits - I tend to agree with not offering money right away.

 

I'm talking about BEFORE lawsuits, and before media attention. Pay people off before a lawsuit or any publicity ever exists is often your best answer.

But if you immediately pay money before there’s lawsuits or lawyers involved you get that reputation of paying cash quickly which makes you become an even bigger target. My friend said word gets around quickly in the scammers groups and they specifically target corporations that are quick to pay cash, especially the ones that don’t involve lawsuits or lawyers. The scammers don’t like getting lawyers involved because it costs extra money. So if they followed your suggestion and paid quickly before it escalated to lawsuits it would make things worse, not better. It’s sad that there are people out there like that making it worse for honest hardworking people like us. 
 

As far as the standard in the travel industry changing, I agree that it’s changing and I’m thrilled about that. The new guidelines for airlines with cash compensation within a certain amount of hours was long overdue. I hope that this is the catalyst that pushes the whole travel industry into the right direction. It’s been needing a major overhaul for quite some time now. 

[CountryStyleMe]

this is why I always tell people edit out or black out your full name, your address, credit card information, booking reference and cabin number from the booking information if you are going to post it to social media (plus ALWAYS make sure your SOCIAL MEDIA profile pages and Social Media stories are set to ''PRIVATE'' by setting the posts viewable to friends only on facebook or followers only on instagram and snapchat under settings on the profiles) that way it stops thieves or scammers pinching your identity 

[BlerkOne]

3 hours ago, aborgman said:

 

The standard in the industry is changing though... The airlines are much more limited in their ability to give credits instead of refunds since COVID.

 

As for not settling lawsuits - I tend to agree with not offering money right away.

 

I'm talking about BEFORE lawsuits, and before media attention. Pay people off before a lawsuit or any publicity ever exists is often your best answer.

Airlines are nothing like cruise lines, however, if I (or my identify thief) cancel a flight and didn't pay extra for a refundable ticket, credits are the only choice.

 

Carnival keeps a herd of lawyers on staff and I think they know how to spot a con. Carnival would have been ot of business a long time ago if they paid off all the grifters.

[BlerkOne]

22 minutes ago, CountryStyleMe said:

this is why I always tell people edit out or black out your full name, your address, credit card information, booking reference and cabin number from the booking information if you are going to post it to social media (plus ALWAYS make sure your SOCIAL MEDIA profile pages and Social Media stories are set to ''PRIVATE'' by setting the posts viewable to friends only on facebook or followers only on instagram and snapchat under settings on the profiles) that way it stops thieves or scammers pinching your identity 

If you join a roll call, it is a reasonable assumption that you will be on the cruise. If someone breaks into your house while you are gone, who's fault is that?

[staceyglow]

34 minutes ago, cruisinqt said:

 

As far as the standard in the travel industry changing, I agree that it’s changing and I’m thrilled about that. The new guidelines for airlines with cash compensation within a certain amount of hours was long overdue. I hope that this is the catalyst that pushes the whole travel industry into the right direction. It’s been needing a major overhaul for quite some time now. 

The new compensation structure for airlines wasn't a guideline, it was a change in federal law.  The airlines are paying out the compensation because they are legally required to do so.

 

And if I am not mistaken, it mostly (or only)applies when the delay is the airline's fault (mechanical issues, lack of crew, etc.), as opposed to, say, posting your flight confirmation number on social media.

[Mum2Mercury]

On 6/20/2024 at 8:29 AM, Pyxie said:

I would bet the person who did this is someone she knows who has some kind of personal beef against her and did it out of spite. 

I'd think it likely.  

On 6/20/2024 at 9:04 AM, aborgman said:

and they had to pay with an Apple gift card."

I can't believe people fall for this junk. 

I used to teach a unit on smart consumer behavior /avoiding scams, and my high school students thought it was all stupid-stupid-stupid -- they all declared they were much too smart to fall for such foolishness.  Then IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS UNIT, one of my students told the class a story about being scammed!  He made an Amazon purchase, which went awry, and he called to try to get it worked out, but he called a wrong number -- and he ended up (at the scammer's instruction) going to the gas station to buy a gift card and passing on the number.  He wasn't a stupid boy, but still the rest of the class remained SURE they would never have fallen for such things.  

22 hours ago, cruisinqt said:

Carnival is following the standard of practice in the travel industry which is to offer a credit but no cash when there are unresolved issues.

That can be a win-win.  The consumer gets compensation, yet the company only has to pay out their actual cost /not the retail price.  

[cruisinqt]

1 hour ago, staceyglow said:

The new compensation structure for airlines wasn't a guideline, it was a change in federal law.  The airlines are paying out the compensation because they are legally required to do so.

 

And if I am not mistaken, it mostly (or only)applies when the delay is the airline's fault (mechanical issues, lack of crew, etc.), as opposed to, say, posting your flight confirmation number on social media.

Yes I know it was a federally mandated law that made that happen. I’m just saying I hope it happens to the rest of the travel industry too. I’m hoping that the government steps in and makes some more changes in the rest of the travel industry. 

[cruisinqt]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

If you join a roll call, it is a reasonable assumption that you will be on the cruise. If someone breaks into your house while you are gone, who's fault is that?

Well that would be the posters fault because he/she was making posts on a roll call using an account that had their personal info on it. I don’t join Facebook roll calls for that reason, I only do CC ones. The only details someone can see about me in a roll call post here on CC is my username (which is never my real name.) I never have my address, location or personal details included in my account. I know some people include everything but I don’t, even on TikTok I don’t use my real name or even what state I live in. And on Facebook when I make posts about my travels I make it private to where only family can see it. In this day and age we have to be hyper vigilant. But your point is valid, some roll call posts are dangerous. 

[EL Pinkaminco]

I really messed up by using my name when I created my account.  I cannot figure out how to change is.  Any ideas?

 

[ColeThornton]

13 minutes ago, EL Pitman said:

I really messed up by using my name when I created my account.  I cannot figure out how to change is.  Any ideas?

 

 

 

 

[EL Pinkaminco]

1 hour ago, ColeThornton said:

 

Thank you so much!!!!!

 

 

 

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

I don't think this particular issue is just related to the cruiseline. I know for a fact that for an airline, you can cancel a flight w record locator, first and last name. Its that easy. There are some FC or premium seats that cost thousands as well. Its the customers fault, full stop. She made her information publicly available so she paid the price.

[aborgman]

20 minutes ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

I don't think this particular issue is just related to the cruiseline. I know for a fact that for an airline, you can cancel a flight w record locator, first and last name. Its that easy. There are some FC or premium seats that cost thousands as well. Its the customers fault, full stop. She made her information publicly available so she paid the price.

 

I suspect that there will be a reckoning for the travel industry with regards to this eventually - just like there has been in the banking industry.

 

The banking industry used to be much more lax about identity verification - then they lost some lawsuits for facilitating 3rd party fraud through negligence, which are somewhat similar to this.

 

Banks have lost suits where customers have allowed their card to come into nefarious hands (customers fault) but the bank was found liable due to their security procedures being inadequate. Eventually after enough of these sorts of cases, the common practice of using a single number + last name as the only security for manipulating reservations is likely to go away in the hospitality industry - just like it disappeared everywhere else decades ago.

[BlerkOne]

McDonald's coffee is still just as hot, but they mitigated that with a warning label. Basically no change.

[aborgman]

1 hour ago, BlerkOne said:

McDonald's coffee is still just as hot, but they mitigated that with a warning label. Basically no change.

 

False.

 

McDonalds has based on random drive through testing dropped coffee temperatures about 10-15 degrees. Some tested locations are even running down around the 160 degrees which is fast food industry standard.

 

They also added a warning label.

 

They also have been subject to numerous hot coffee lawsuits since then, including two currently in the courts.

 

 

I think it's also important to note - failing to meet industry standards can create negligence, but meeting them does not prevent it.

 

 

 

[BlerkOne]

23 minutes ago, aborgman said:

 

False.

 

McDonalds has based on random drive through testing dropped coffee temperatures about 10-15 degrees. Some tested locations are even running down around the 160 degrees which is fast food industry standard.

 

They also added a warning label.

 

They also have been subject to numerous hot coffee lawsuits since then, including two currently in the courts.

 

 

I think it's also important to note - failing to meet industry standards can create negligence, but meeting them does not prevent it.

 

 

 

Clearly the coffee temperature was not dropped given the current lawsuits. And Carnival still is not to blame for some idiot posting enough information for someone to steal her identity.

[aborgman]

12 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Clearly the coffee temperature was not dropped given the current lawsuits. And Carnival still is not to blame for some idiot posting enough information for someone to steal her identity.

 

That really, really isn't at all clear.

 

McDonalds went from keeping coffee on average around 190-195 degrees, down to about 180 degrees.

 

180 degrees is still 20-25 degrees above industry standard, above recommended serving temperature, and is still getting them sued.

 

...and you're right that Carnival is not to blame for her identity being stolen. If at fault - they would be at fault for their negligent security which allowed the identity theft to have significant consequences.

 

Much like the Oxford Michigan school shooting - the shooter was convicted for the shooting, the parents were convicted for their negligent behavior in allowing him access to a gun. The parents aren't being punished for the shooting - but for their own negligence.

 

 

Edited Monday at 07:06 PM by aborgman

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

2 hours ago, aborgman said:

 

I suspect that there will be a reckoning for the travel industry with regards to this eventually - just like there has been in the banking industry.

 

The banking industry used to be much more lax about identity verification - then they lost some lawsuits for facilitating 3rd party fraud through negligence, which are somewhat similar to this.

 

Banks have lost suits where customers have allowed their card to come into nefarious hands (customers fault) but the bank was found liable due to their security procedures being inadequate. Eventually after enough of these sorts of cases, the common practice of using a single number + last name as the only security for manipulating reservations is likely to go away in the hospitality industry - just like it disappeared everywhere else decades ago.

I agree to an extent but the issue at hand is the customer didn't do all they could to protect the integrity of their purchase, in this case it was a cruise line booking. They in fact welcomed the ability for someone to access their booking. 

[aborgman]

13 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

Clearly the coffee temperature was not dropped given the current lawsuits.

 

Enough is whatever maximizes profit, not necessarily what minimizes lawsuits.

 

Were it not for the subsequent publicity - Ford's decision to not fix the bumper bolts on exploding Ford Pinto's was the correct one.

 

[aborgman]

1 minute ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

I agree to an extent but the issue at hand is the customer didn't do all they could to protect the integrity of their purchase, in this case it was a cruise line booking. They in fact welcomed the ability for someone to access their booking. 

 

That is largely irrelevant.

 

They are basically two separate things -  no matter how stupid the customer is, the company is still required to meet certain minimum requirements security wise.

 

Citibank is currently being sued by the State of New York for something very similar:

 

"Defendant has violated New York Executive Law § 63(12) by engaging in repeated and persistent illegal conduct by:

 

- failing to develop, implement, and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers’ financial account information.

 

- failing to maintain a data security program that is appropriately designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identify theft in response to red flags indicative of possible identity theft."

 

...but hey - Citi regularly claims they don't need to do anything because:

 

“You did not take adequate steps to safeguard your account. This failure compromised the security of your account information and directly contributed to allowing the transaction(s) in question to take place.”

 

[BlerkOne]

41 minutes ago, aborgman said:

 

That is largely irrelevant.

 

 

 

Largely irrelevant are repeated attempts to take the thread off topic with false equivalents.

 

The person who continues to try to blame Carnival for her stupidity isn't waiting for law enforcement to complete their investigation and she isn't suing in a court of law. Carnival doesn't have a history of stupid people doing stupid things and then blaming Carnival.

 

You can tell it is an election year.