Reading that decision: it looks like Rothstein specifically asked the sales agent what constituted "fraudulent use" at the time he purchased the pass. The cour

Reading that decision: it looks like Rothstein specifically asked the sales agent what constituted "fraudulent use" at the time he purchased the pass. The court doesn't explain the agent's response, but goes on to argue that Rothstein could have forced the company to include it into the contract language -- and since he did not do that, that response doesn't bind the company. Again, I don't know what the actual response was, but this hints that the explanation Rothstein was given at sales time was not the same as what American enforced upon him. I guess this may be a reasonable legal outcome, but it doesn't seem terribly just.