I've read the posts debating the issues of whether Hilton should or should not honor the rates and while I don't necessarily agree completely, all have expressed some veryy valid points. Is booking 300 rooms ethical and a sheer sign of greed? In my opinion, absolutely and this is not intended to be a flame against whomever it was that booked the 300 rooms. Whether Hilton should honor the rate is questionable and if so, should the 300 room guest be entitled to an alternative form of compensation? Hilton offered on it's website the "lowest available rate" which appeared to be zero. In essence, they made an offer and it was accepted. Any company that desires to have an online presence should set in place the necessary safeguards to prevent these types of mishaps from occuring. It's a cost of doing business and Hilton should honor the rates for one booking or perhaps offer a weekend during low peak. Hilton was negligent in loading the rates and it could have been avoided had the responsible individual performed a "test" booking or reviewed the changes.

Likewise, since rates are tied to the occupancy rate and had someone booked a room at the SDMV during the same period the 300 room person did, he or she would have paid a higher than normal rate. Now, when 299 of 300 rooms are empty or the reservation cancelled 24 hrs prior to the date of arrival, is Hilton going to contact the individual who is paying the inflated rate as it was an "error"? Their error caused an inflated rate but I sincerely doubt they will attempt to make any corrections for any guest who had booked a room at a higher than normal rate. Now we have an innocent guest who is truly wronged due to someone's greed of booking 300 rooms.