Chase T&C Changes

[Max]

This may or may not be the place for this one, and apologies if someone has already started this conversation on this forum, but I'm wondering what the reaction here is to the new terms & conditions for some of the Chase cards. Reports around the web* are saying it has been found on UR cards as well as United and SW. The new clause causing a stir is:

"Chase cardmembers who currently have or have had a Chase credit card in any Rewards Program associated with this offer, may not be eligible for a second Chase credit card in the same Rewards Program. Chase cardmembers currently receiving promotional pricing, or Chase cardmembers with a history of only using their current or prior Chase card for promotional pricing offers, are not eligible for a second Chase credit card with promotional pricing."

This to me reads like Amex's T&C used to read before their once in a lifetime signup bonus rule. What do you guys think? Do you think that they will be strict or lenient when choosing to enforce this new rule?


*Credit where credit's due: I think I first saw it on Doctor of Credit, but I've seen it in a few other places since then too.

 

[italdesign]

It seems to be on every Chase card now (checked Hyatt and it has it).

I'm not too worried yet. The terms on the landing page still says the standard 24 months thing.

I'm sure we'll get some data points soon.

 

[mmax1]

Seems the Chase terms are more flexible than AmEx's. "May not be eligible" tells me they are just looking for a way to weed out unprofitable customers. Of course, that is probably most of us.

 

[Max]

Seems the Chase terms are more flexible than AmEx's. "May not be eligible" tells me they are just looking for a way to weed out unprofitable customers. Of course, that is probably most of us.

I just don't like vague terms & conditions. Churners aside, I don't know how certain customers are able to determine if they are eligible for a promotion with such vague language.

I get that they want to cut down on churners. It's ultimately not very profitable to them, so it makes sense. But they do need to give us stricter guidelines to follow instead of what this currently says.

 

[velveteenrobber]

I just don't like vague terms & conditions. Churners aside, I don't know how certain customers are able to determine if they are eligible for a promotion with such vague language.

I get that they want to cut down on churners. It's ultimately not very profitable to them, so it makes sense. But they do need to give us stricter guidelines to follow instead of what this currently says.

It probably lets them make judgments on a case by case basis (which is usually bad for consumers). They're not likely to prevent an average applicant from getting the bonus, but if there's a borderline case (maybe churner, maybe not), they'll get the discretion to do what they want. Obviously that is bad because of the lack of predictability.