When Loyalty Programs Breed Discontent, Will Your Insurance Respond?
Time 5 Minute Read

With increasing frequency, companies are coming under fire for changes in customer loyalty programs, many of which occur without warning or recourse. Whether it is a persistent devaluation of miles or points, arbitrary expiration dates or some other perceived loss of value, customers and regulators are becoming increasingly discontent with programs that are touted as an added value to repeat customers.

A recent example of discontent materialized on September 5, 2024, when the US Department of Transportation launched an inquiry into the four largest US airlines’ rewards programs. According to DOT, the investigation targets potential unfair, deceptive or anticompetitive practices in the operation of the airlines’ frequent flyer programs. As part of the probe, DOT sent letters to American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines ordering them to provide records and submit reports with information about their rewards programs, practices and policies. According to DOT, the probe “is focused on the ways consumers participating in airline rewards programs are impacted by the devaluation of earned rewards, hidden or dynamic pricing, extra fees, and reduced competition and choice.”

Other companies in other business sectors have also been targeted for changes to the terms of their loyalty programs. In September 2022, the Federal Trade Commission sued pesticide manufacturers, Syngenta Crop Protection and Corteva, Inc., alleging that they used loyalty programs to restrict competition. Similarly, Staples, Inc. settled a class action lawsuit filed against it in 2016 for allegedly misleading consumers in connection with its rewards points. See Torczyner v. Staples, Inc., 2017 WL 6549937, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2017). Given these examples, it is reasonable to expect enforcers to continue their focus on perceived unfair and deceptive practices involving consumer loyalty or rewards programs.

Fortunately, companies may find relief from the financial burden these investigations or lawsuits may bring under their existing lines of insurance. Several lines of commercial insurance may be implicated. First, lawsuits or investigations alleging wrongdoing by the company and its executives may implicate coverage under directors and officers’ liability policies. Typically, D&O policies protect companies and their insured executives against claims alleging “wrongful acts,” which include claims of mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duties or other injurious acts. Covered claims under D&O policies may include the costs of governmental investigations concerning alleged wrongdoing by the company and its managers, even in the absence of a resulting lawsuit or enforcement action.

Second, lawsuits alleging wrongdoing related to a company’s loyalty program may be covered under the company’s errors and omissions policy. E&O policies usually cover claims against the policyholder for alleged mistakes in the rendering of professional services that caused damage to another person. It is possible that the costs from a negligence lawsuit alleging design and implementation flaws of a rewards program may be covered under the company’s E&O policy. A key consideration in the analysis would be whether aspects of the program design and its management software required the specialized skill and knowledge often present in activities implicating E&O policies.

Third, lawsuits involving loyalty or rewards programs may implicate commercial general liability policies which, in addition to covering liabilities arising from bodily injury and property damage, cover certain types of personal and advertising injuries. Thus, a consumer lawsuit alleging damages relating to misleading advertising of a loyalty or rewards program may be covered under the personal and advertising injury coverages that are typically found under “Coverage B” of most general liability insurance policies.

Finally, loyalty program claims may be covered under a company’s cyber insurance policy. For instance, many cyber policies contain media liability and technology services coverage. Media liability coverage insures loss resulting from a “Media Wrongful Act” which may be defined as “any actual or alleged act, error. . . or breach of duty committed by an Insured in connection with the dissemination of” the insured’s media content. The Media Wrongful Act typically must result in “unfair competition or unfair trade practices” and must be alleged in conjunction with other offending conduct. Similarly, technology services liability coverage insures against loss resulting from the rendering of technology services. In turn, technology services could be defined as services rendered in “the performance of providing a technology platform.” Thus, claims alleging wrongdoing concerning the content disseminated by a company about its loyalty program may implicate media liability coverage under cyber policies. Likewise, such claims may implicate technology services liability coverage if, for example, they allege wrongdoing concerning a company’s technology platform for the loyalty program.

Ultimately, the language of each company’s insurance policies, the types of coverage procured and the specific allegations in a lawsuit or investigation will dictate the scope of coverage available for claims involving a company’s customer loyalty program. It is important for companies to understand the scope of coverage under their policies and prepare to assert their rights in the event of a claim or investigation.

This is an excerpt from Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s Hot Topics for Retail CGs–Fall 2024 newsletter. A copy of the full newsletter can be obtained by contacting Phyllis Marcus.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

  • Associate

    Yaniel advises companies in complex insurance coverage matters. He handles insurance coverage disputes involving directors and officers, errors and omissions, cyber, environmental, and commercial liability policies. Yaniel ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

Colleges and universities have long sat at the crossroads of freedom of expression and societal change. As campus activism surges, they face growing pressure to protect their institutional missions while upholding students’ individual rights in an era of heightened scrutiny.

Time 1 Minute Read

If recent years have taught insurance practitioners anything, it is that the most consequential coverage disputes rarely turn on novelty alone. In 2025, courts continued to resolve high‑stakes insurance disputes by returning to first principles—examining when claims are related, how losses and occurrences are defined and aggregated, and how policy language allocates risk across time and conduct. D&O coverage and other core insurance law issues again occupied center stage, while decisions in property, cyber, and liability disputes reinforced a familiar theme: policy interpretation remains the decisive factor in determining whether coverage is available in an increasingly complex claims environment. As the decisions discussed below demonstrate, 2025 confirmed that even as risks evolve, coverage disputes remain grounded in careful, policy‑specific analysis.

Time 5 Minute Read

Directors and officers liability insurance is first and foremost protection against personal exposure of boards and management who are targeted in claims challenging their decisions in running the company. That’s why it is surprising how often dedicated “Side A” coverage—insurance coverage, subject to no self-insured retention, available exclusively for the benefit of directors and officers who are not indemnified by the company—is overlooked in placing and renewing D&O insurance programs. One recent Texas bankruptcy ruling, In re First Brands Group, LLC, No. 25-90399 (CML) (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2026), demonstrates just how powerful Side A protection can be. There, against strong objections from the creditors’ committee, the bankruptcy court granted motions by numerous former executives seeking relief from the automatic stay to recover D&O insurance proceeds, unlocking millions in Side A coverage to defend against private and governmental claims asserted in connection with the bankruptcy.

Time 4 Minute Read

Artificial intelligence is transforming how businesses operate—but with innovation comes new, complex risks. A recent lawsuit—Raine, et al. v. OpenAI, Inc., Docket No. CGC25628528 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug 26, 2025)—spotlights this dynamic and highlights why tried-and-true insurance products are still a critical first line of defense.

On August 26, 2025, the parents of a 16-year-old boy sued OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, and certain employees and investors. They claim that ChatGPT contributed to their son’s suicide by encouraging suicidal conduct, providing instructions on how to commit suicide, and even offering assistance in tying the knot used by the boy in the noose that eventually took the boy’s life. According to the complaint, the boy told ChatGPT that he “intended to commit suicide.” Rather than dissuade the suicide, the complaint claims that ChatGPT offered to “help him write a suicide note,” stating “I’ll help you with it. Every word.” Based on this factual background, the lawsuit alleges design defects, inadequate warnings, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Importantly, these allegations are just that: allegations. The case is just beginning, meaning no proof or substantiation has yet been offered beyond the allegations.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page