Wyndham Timeshare Lawsuit
The Wyndham timeshare lawsuit states that their promotions and advertising practices in regard to timeshares are fraudulent. Complaint plaintiffs Anna Marie Deneen, Michael J. Deneen, Erin Munoz-USA, Paul Munoz-USA, and Nazret Z. These individuals were lured into a marketing plan, where they were encouraged to purchase a Wyndham through an Internet scheme. Once they purchased the timeshare, they were required to live at the resort for a specified length of time, which was then deducted from their paid price. Although the Wyndham advertised that they offered a free vacation when purchased via the Internet, they did not offer any evidence of such free vacations during the course of the lawsuit.
When asked to back up their statements in the lawsuit, the defendants named in the suit responded that they did not offer vacation discounts or free vacations. Instead, they maintained that their promotion and advertising tactics were based upon common sense and good business ethics. They also maintained that they never talked consumers into purchasing timeshares through an Internet scheme. Additionally, they said that their aggressive marketing tactics were only meant to get people’s feedback on how well they would enjoy staying at the resort.
A Wyndham Timeshare lawsuit also charges that the defendant’s marketing plan, which was centered around a television commercial and print ads, was deceptive because it promoted the resort as a place where families could “pool” and stay together for a reduced price. In reality, the plaintiffs say that families on average pay more than ten times the advertised “pooling rate” at the wyndham timeshare. The advertiser did not inform customers of these numbers, so when they were offered a promotion to purchase a vacation package, many of them believed that they were getting a deal. Unfortunately, once they started to use the timeshare, they soon found out that accommodations at the Wyndham resort were very expensive and that many family members actually left the property.
Another part of the Wyndham Timeshare lawsuit involves how the defendants advertised that a couple could stay in the same room as a “teamer.” Although the couple in question actually stayed in the exact same room as a “teamer” during their trip, this did not escape the attention of a judge during the trial. He eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. According to the Wyndham lawsuit, the defendants knew that although the couples did stay in the same room, they received different treatment when it came to food, room assignments, entertainment, transportation, etc. In addition, the lawsuit says that the defendants failed to provide any proof that their promotion of the timeshare was even worth what they were charging for it.
For their part, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages that would help them pay for future vacations, medical bills, replacement vehicles, etc. The Wyndham Timeshare lawsuit claims that the defendant failed to disclose that the deals being offered were deeply discounted and did not cover expenses like airfare and other accommodations. Furthermore, the defendants failed to ensure that full disclosure of the timeshare ownership information was provided to customers. It is also claimed that defendant’s sales presentations of the timeshares were designed to keep customers locked into purchasing decisions without fully explaining the vacation travel options available. The plaintiffs hope that by putting forth these claims, the court can prevent the defendant from making false promises and misleading customers about vacation travel options and location attractions.
Although the Wyndham lawsuit claims that the defendants failed to live up to their end of the timeshare contract promises, the hotel group and its attorneys say that the plaintiffs are responsible for all claims against them. They also point out that the plaintiffs are not seeking any damages in common law and are only pursuing liability through the legal system. The two sides have until mid-January to settle the case before it goes to trial. If no settlement is reached, the case will go to trial before a jury. The plaintiffs and the defendants have also agreed to drop their wrongful death claim.