Corrections in Webloyalty Lawsuit Story
It’s not fun making mistakes. On Wednesday, we published a story about a class-action lawsuit being brought against Webloyalty, Fandango, Priceline, and others. We’re proud of our work on the piece and, as always, tried hard to get the story straight, but yesterday evening several potential inaccuracies were brought to our attention. We investigated further and found that we had indeed made errors on some of the details. To be clear, we stand behind the overall story, but we believe in owning up to our mistakes, so we’d like to set the record straight on the points we got wrong:
— Due to an editing error, we identified Petco.com as one of the defendants in the lawsuit. While Petco is among Webloyalty’s partners (several of whom are indeed named in the lawsuit), it is not a defendant in the case.
— Due to a miscommunication between the reporter and one of the attorneys in the lawsuit, the article incorrectly described the procedural posture of the case. Specifically, we reported that both a Webloyalty motion to dismiss the case and a Webloyalty motion for summary judgment had been denied by the court. In fact, Webloyalty did not make a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It filed a motion for summary judgment at the outset that was terminated by the court without prejudice so the parties could take discovery. Webloyalty has the right to refile that motion.
We sincerely regret these errors and have corrected them. You can find the revised article here.