Six Flags Magic Mountain sued by pass holder for misleading advertising

Posted Friday, August 2, 2002 4:53 AM | Contributed by Chitown

A lawsuit was filed against Six Flags Magic Mountain by a Los Angeles man who is disappointed with the closure of X, the latest roller coaster in the theme park’s stockade of thrill rides. Alfred Mirzaie claims Magic Mountain has misled its customers with false advertising to lure them to the park when its newest and biggest attraction is closed. Design problems were to blame for X’s mid-June closure, coinciding with the park’s busiest season, park officials said.

Read more from The Signal.

Related parks

Friday, August 2, 2002 5:00 AM
This is never gonna fly.
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 5:03 AM
Jeff's avatar

I'd file this under "stuff happens" myself. I mean, it is a bummer that the ride isn't open, but other than the fact that they need to tweak it, they don't owe anyone details.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"Let's stop saying 'don't quote me,' because if no one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying." - Dogma, KMFDM

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 5:07 AM

Wow, what a great idea! Let's sue the theme parks because rides are closed.(smell the sarcasm)

People like this irritate me, they try to sue the park and then they will be the first ones to complain when ticket costs are raised because the company has to make up for a lawsuit.

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 5:34 AM
It never fails to surpise me that in the US it's apparently possible to sue for every thinkable reason.... Like for example that guy who's sueing Burger King and MacDonalds because "the companies made him believe fastfood is healthy, but now he's overweight..." I don't know how it works on the other side of the Atlantic, but overhere (holland) a lawyer would just laugh in your face and tell you to get a life! :)

-----------------
I'm proud of ALL my mayor malfunctions!

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 5:49 AM
Gawd, people will sue for anything! There's an easier way people! Marry a millionaire, like I did! :) LOL
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 6:53 AM

Helios -- unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, or there'd be even MORE stupid suits like this) most Americans also look at these ridiculous cases and shake our heads.

-----------------
--Greg
"Now all I want is to find a way home, to warn Earth -- look upward, and share the wonders I see..."
My page

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 7:26 AM

Ok I figured it out, this guy just can't read, the following is STRAIGHT from the back of the Six Flags Season Pass

"Due to ride maintenance and other circumstances, certain rides and attractions (including new rides) may not be open to the public. Rides subject to availability and/or height, weight and safety restrictions."

No where does it say that we (season pass owners) have to know every thing that is going on at the park.

Besides, if he had had the brains to come to one of the HUNDREDS of roller coaster related sites and searched for it, he would have gotten the idea of why it might have closed.

-----------------
Veck
Adrenaline Coaster Design - http://pumpingrct.topcities.com/

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:01 AM

To play devils advocate here....

Last year SFGAM was forced by the city of Chicago to pull billboards that advertised Deja Vu. The reason was cited that the advertisments could be viewed as false advertisements since the ride was not operational. that was a very legitimate case IMO.

I can see the frustration the passholder may have. A few questions though.... Is SFMM still advertising X on commercials, literature and billboards? I know they pulled it from their website. If other current forms of park advertisment has it listed, then he may indeed have a case.

I also hope that the park is alerting guests via signage about the closure prior to entering the parking lot.

However, SFMM added other attractions that ARE operational as far as I know. Is Deja Vu operation consistant?

Shaggy

-----------------
Shaggy

R.I.P. Maestro
Phantom Theater 1992-2002

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:02 AM
This is particularly ridiculous since SFMM has tried hard to make it clear that X is not operating. They have removed it from their advertising and their website. This is in contrast to some other parks that have continued to advertise rides that are down for extended periods.
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:29 AM
Shaggy ... the article says "A sign adorns the parking lot entrance flashing, “‘X’ is closed today. Sorry for the inconvenience,” to give would-be riders a chance to turn around."
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:40 AM

Shaggy. The Attorney General of Illinois made them pull the billboards. The city of Chicago could care less what SFGAm does.

Lawsuits like this one against SFMM are ridiculous. I guess 14 other coasters and all the other Six Flags parks that this guy can enjoy doesnt mean anything to him. "SAD"

-----------------
Ric Flair was hitting on the female host, he told her - "Space Mountain may be the oldest ride in the park, but it has the longest line." WOOOOO!

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:48 AM
Mamoosh's avatar SFMM has completely dropped all X advertising and instead is touting Deja Vu as the new coaster [again...LOL!].

-----------------
"Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a book. Inside of a dog its too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:48 AM

Even though I know most of you disagree, I actually agree with this lawsuit. I bought a season pass back in 2001 because they advertised that 3 new coasters would be up and running that year. Goliath Jr. did open on schedule (big whoop if you're not a kid), Deja Vu opened at the end of summer (so much for a spring opening), and X didn't open until the last week of the year (which sucked 'cause I was out of town for the holidays). Being somewhat sympathetic to the technical difficulties of the latter 2 coasters, I renewed my pass for this year, thinking that SFMM had finally got their act together. Well, I was wrong again! I have yet to ride X and I've already been there on 3 separate occasions.

This is false advertising plain and simple, and I fell for it twice (3 times if you count the year that Superman: The Escape failed to open when advertised). Sure, I'm all for safety and making sure the ride works properly, but still, SFMM had no problem taking my money selling a product that was not yet accessible. I definitely think a refund is in order or at least a postponement of the season pass expiration date. Like the plaintiff, I too wrote a letter to SFMM asking for information, and all I got was a form letter saying "Sorry for the inconvenience." Had they done ANYTHING to appear to be sympathetic, I would be more forgiving, but their response just tells me that SFMM just doesn't care about it's patrons as much as they care about making money at all costs.

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 8:50 AM
What are you guys complaining about? This guy has a legit reason to be mad. Stop being enthusiasts for a second and think of it from a neutral point of view. If I baught a season pass for a park because of a new ride and that ride is not open I'd be pissed off too. It doesn't matter what SFMM is saying today about the ride being closed, it's what they said back in January about getting a season pass and being able to ride X. And considering they probabl raised season pass prices because of X and Deja Vu, the guy has even more reason to complain.

-----------------
"This time I think ... I think it's ... it's going to work!" - Dr.Bruce Banner

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 9:02 AM
The coke cans are still advertising the ride.
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 9:06 AM
Thank you IOArules for saying it like it is!
+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 9:27 AM

No one said the guys doesn't have a legit reason to be mad, I'm upset that I can't ride my #2 steel coaster. But another slap happy lawsuit? Give me a break. I'm sorry, but after Sept 11th, this kind of bull---- is so trivial to me that I want to throw up.

Since folks seemed to miss it the first time, I'll post it again.

"Due to ride maintenance and other circumstances, certain rides and attractions (including new rides) may not be open to the public. Rides subject to availability and/or height, weight and safety restrictions."

It says it right there on the season pass. If the guy didn't like this idea, or you IOArules, there was your chance to get your refund RIGHT THERE. But did he do that? Of course not. He made sure to get all year usage of the pass, then sue.

This crap is getting crazy. The sad part is, the park will ultimately settle with him. Suppose X opens tommorrow, then what?

-----------------
"Escuse me, can you tell me where the heck the Mystery Lodge is"?

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 9:37 AM

He's not the only one who is mad... think about the people who planned trips to CA expecting to ride X. But that is no reason to file a lawsuit.

-Jeff

http://americacoasters.com

+0
Friday, August 2, 2002 9:45 AM

"Shaggy. The Attorney General of Illinois made them pull the billboards. The city of Chicago could care less what SFGAm does. "

TomAAAto - Tomahhhhto ;-)

That makes no difference in the point. The fact is, when something is advertised as part of a purchase, and then it is not delivered, then the buyer has every right to be angry about not getting what they paid for.

The article (which I did not read fully the first time around) states that the park is indeed still advertising X in brochures and literature. That is no different than SFGAM advertising Deja Vu when it was delayed.

I expect that the park had it's literature printed or well underway when the closure happened, and rather than swallow the cost of re-prints or such, they cut corners and still used the ones advertising X. Not a smart move. They probably never thought that someone would actually "call" them on it.

You know, if I bought a bag of a dozen apples that were advertised on sale at my nearby grocery store, and then found 4 of them to be missing, then I would want my money back. It's the same thing.

Funny thing is, I can totally see what the guy is saying. He says that he contacted the park about the issue and probably requested to get his money back. Of course SFMM woudl NEVER do that. In their eyes they did nothign wrong. I also expect that typical SF customer relations took over and this guy was given the typical shaft. Hence the lawsuit. Had they just decided to honor his pass next season quietly, then this matter would be a non-issue. But then again, that is not SF's style is it? The customer is never right.

I hope he wins, and I hope they have to honor all season passes of those that complain next year. Perhaps then SF will take stock in the fact that customers are their bread and butter, and the poor service they consistantly deliver at their parks does not float anymore.

Shaggy

-----------------
Shaggy

R.I.P. Maestro
Phantom Theater 1992-2002

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...