Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Hotels and Places to Stay > Marriott | Marriott Bonvoy
Reload this Page >

Washington DC Attorney General sues Marriott over "deceptive resort fees"

Washington DC Attorney General sues Marriott over "deceptive resort fees"

Old Jul 10, 2019, 1:54 pm
  #46  
Hilton Contributor BadgeHyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In the air
Programs: Hyatt Globalist, Bonvoy LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, GHA Tit, BA Gold, Turkish Elite
Posts: 8,683
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
This is such an uphill battle - the biggest hurdle by far is the court would have to find it can overrule the Federal Trade Commission which has jurisdiction on Resort Fees much like DOT with the airline industry.

That'll be the first thing brought up by Marriott.
I dont know the US system, but in most countries consumer protection doesnt just sit in the appropriate Depts jurisdiction for a given industry. Surely the way pricing is presented to consumers on a website has to be covered by a single entity?
EuropeanPete is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 2:02 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Originally Posted by hotturnip
In my experience, this is rare. Almost all rates are for one or two adults in the room, and most chains do not charge extra for kids with existing bedding.

In contrast, when I worked at Hyatt in the 80s, rack rates were $20 different between single and double occupancy.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "extra person fee" thing.
In some parts of Europe, it is common to charge different rates but they are pretty clearly disclosed so long as you indicate the number of guests when you conduct the search.

Not so with resort fees.
C17PSGR is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 2:13 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by EuropeanPete


I don’t know the US system, but in most countries consumer protection doesn’t just sit in the appropriate Dept’s jurisdiction for a given industry. Surely the way pricing is presented to consumers on a website has to be covered by a single entity?
I'm not sure I completely understand your question.

But, the FTC in the US essentially regulates this issue and they have stated numerous times that a resort fee does not need to be displayed as part of a advertised room rate as long as it is displayed as part of the booking path. The FTC could simply say today, resort fees must be displayed as part of the room rate but they haven't and no indication they will. A court will have to find as a matter of law, a court can overrule the FTC policy. The FTC has been on record on this issue since 2012 and affirmed it many times. For instance, when you book on Marriott - the resort fees are prominently displayed - if they weren't the FTC would step in.

The FTC on the flip side, has ordered airlines to display the full cost of the total airfare as part of the overall fare - basically, airfare, fees, fuel charges, tax.

This is a bigger issue than resort fees - it is the same way AirBnB adds all the extra charges
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 2:43 pm
  #49  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,496
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
But, the FTC in the US essentially regulates this issue and they have stated numerous times that a resort fee does not need to be displayed as part of a advertised room rate as long as it is displayed as part of the booking path. The FTC could simply say today, resort fees must be displayed as part of the room rate but they haven't and no indication they will. A court will have to find as a matter of law, a court can overrule the FTC policy. The FTC has been on record on this issue since 2012 and affirmed it many times. For instance, when you book on Marriott - the resort fees are prominently displayed - if they weren't the FTC would step in.
Marriott *doesn't* display them in total on the first search page. They are intentionally hidden. The entire purpose of a resort fee is deception - there's literally no ethical reason for them to exist.

If the Federal agency wants to side with industry lobbyists, fine. That does not prohibit a state AG from going after the hotels at that level.
pinniped is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 3:24 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by pinniped
Marriott *doesn't* display them in total on the first search page. They are intentionally hidden. The entire purpose of a resort fee is deception - there's literally no ethical reason for them to exist.

If the Federal agency wants to side with industry lobbyists, fine. That does not prohibit a state AG from going after the hotels at that level.
Which the FTC has said is fine - it doesn't have to be on the first search page - they've specifically said resort fees do not have to be part of the room rate.

Of course a State AG can sue - and now a court will need to decide the merit and if they can overrule the FTC. Law firms have started several class action suits - none of which have prevailed.

Of course we all don't want to pay fees - my point I'm trying to make this is an uphill battle based on it is regulated by FTC - and courts have been hesitant to take on or overrule the FTC, DOT, etc since as a matter of law, the FTC regulates the pricing.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 3:33 pm
  #51  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,496
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
Which the FTC has said is fine - it doesn't have to be on the first search page - they've specifically said resort fees do not have to be part of the room rate.

Of course a State AG can sue - and now a court will need to decide the merit and if they can overrule the FTC. Law firms have started several class action suits - none of which have prevailed.

Of course we all don't want to pay fees - my point I'm trying to make this is an uphill battle based on it is regulated by FTC - and courts have been hesitant to take on or overrule the FTC, DOT, etc since as a matter of law, the FTC regulates the pricing.
Does a state actually have to get a court to overrule the FTC? Or does it merely need to convince a court that the fees violate some state law or are against the interests of people in that state?

I get where states have limited power over airlines operating interstate or international flights. But a hotel would seem to be much more in the states' domain.

That said, I also figured that domain would be about resort fees within the state - not suing for damages on behalf of the state's residents staying in other states or countries. IANAL and don't even watch enough Law & Order to try to fake it, so I really don't understand how that legal strategy works. Nor do I know whether Washington DC's special not-quite-a-state status matters at all.

When I saw the headline, I figured the endgame would be (at best) that hotels in the District can't charge resort fees. I haven't personally paid them there, but maybe they see what's going on in NYC and are getting ahead of the game. I don't quite get how a DC AG can win a case and get them banned throughout the Marriott world.

I also never thought that Marriott was a DC company. I know their first hotel was in Virginia, but I thought their headquarters were in Bethesda (or somewhere up that way - outside the District).
pinniped is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 5:13 pm
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, AC MM E75, Marriott LT Ti, IHG Da Amb, Hyatt Glob
Posts: 15,471
Originally Posted by SNA_Flyer
Asia has had something similar called a "Service Charge". Inflates the rate by 10-20%, including food & beverage. And it rarely goes to the staff serving you.
Doesn't apply to reward stays though.
MSPeconomist, CCIE_Flyer and nacho like this.
margarita girl is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 6:39 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by pinniped
Does a state actually have to get a court to overrule the FTC? Or does it merely need to convince a court that the fees violate some state law or are against the interests of people in that state?

I get where states have limited power over airlines operating interstate or international flights. But a hotel would seem to be much more in the states' domain.

That said, I also figured that domain would be about resort fees within the state - not suing for damages on behalf of the state's residents staying in other states or countries. IANAL and don't even watch enough Law & Order to try to fake it, so I really don't understand how that legal strategy works. Nor do I know whether Washington DC's special not-quite-a-state status matters at all.

When I saw the headline, I figured the endgame would be (at best) that hotels in the District can't charge resort fees. I haven't personally paid them there, but maybe they see what's going on in NYC and are getting ahead of the game. I don't quite get how a DC AG can win a case and get them banned throughout the Marriott world.

I also never thought that Marriott was a DC company. I know their first hotel was in Virginia, but I thought their headquarters were in Bethesda (or somewhere up that way - outside the District).
You generally can't overrule the FTC and Washington DC will have to convince the District Court of DC that 1) It has jurisdiction which DC justifies as violating their Consumer Protection Law 2) Marriott is hurting DC consumers, and 3) The much harder one - That the DC Consumer Protection Law supersedes the regulatory decisions of the FTC and that law pertains to the advertising of hotel pricing in the District.

While I think this is good press for the District - bad press for Marriott - and will be interesting to watch - my personal opinion, once Marriott objects to the jurisdiction, the DC court will dismiss and tell the Attorney General this would need to be filed in Federal Court.

The problem if you let every District/State/City regulate the online advertising of hotel prices is different laws everywhere and these advertisements certainly go across state lines. If you want confusing, lets say no resort fees in the District, resort fees ok in Hawaii but need to be disclosed, resort fees ok in Las Vegas and don't even need to be disclosed, and so and so on if you don't have Federal regulation.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 7:55 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: COS
Programs: UA Gold/1.5MM (several years running now!), Marriott LTTE, Hertz Prez
Posts: 1,899
I personally love being afforded the mandatory opportunity to shell out $35-$50/night for access to a hotel's fleet of two bicycles (plus FREE Wi-Fi!). Which I thought was quite funny when I first experienced it at the Blue Moon on South Beach; then I checked into the Coronado Resort recently where it wasn't a fleet of two bicycles, but rather up to TWO HOURS of free bicycle access (then something like $50/hour thereafter should you actually sit down to lunch somewhere or anything exotic like that - times two if not traveling alone)!

Resident trolls gonna troll, but no rational human being sees this sort of money grab for anything other than what it so plainly is. And whether or not it stands any real chance of success in the court system, just the effort alone serves a worthy cause...
CCIE_Flyer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 8:09 pm
  #55  
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,286
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
The problem if you let every District/State/City regulate the online advertising of hotel prices is different laws everywhere and these advertisements certainly go across state lines.
Perhaps other states will join the case, as sometimes happens in consumer suits like this.
dayone is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 8:14 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by dayone
Perhaps other states will join the case, as sometimes happens in consumer suits like this.
If it becomes a Federal Case other States can join in.

And this isn't even in a State Court - it is in a District Court.

To really get the resort fees in the room rate - this really comes down to creating a Federal Law or the FTC making a ruling such as they did in airline pricing.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 8:37 pm
  #57  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,326
Originally Posted by hotturnip
In my experience, this is rare. Almost all rates are for one or two adults in the room, and most chains do not charge extra for kids with existing bedding.

In contrast, when I worked at Hyatt in the 80s, rack rates were $20 different between single and double occupancy.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "extra person fee" thing.
OT but I remember a time when IIRC Hilton had a policy that one guest sharing a room with an elite or HHonors participant would be free. They advertised it as a benefit to take one's wife along on business trips, but it could also be interpreted as a rule that they don't charge extra for hookers, even if the prostitute or call girl stays for the night.

I'd have no problem with resort fees that show as a separate amount under the room rate when one does a first. In fact, this would be better since resort fees don't earn points but often are emempt from taxes.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 8:57 pm
  #58  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
the biggest hurdle by far is the court would have to find it can overrule the Federal Trade Commission
That assumes the FTC has ever made such a ruling. I can't say I've heard of one.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old Jul 10, 2019, 10:49 pm
  #59  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Originally Posted by mahasamatman
That assumes the FTC has ever made such a ruling. I can't say I've heard of one.
They've ruled, specifically, that if resort fees are disclosed, they can be separate from the room rate - that's why the initial search just has room rate - next click has resort fee - this goes back to 2012.

It is also why AirBnB has a lot of fees not initially disclosed until you click later - this is bigger than resort fees.

It is odd they've ruled airlines must disclose all pricing and hotels do not.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 11, 2019, 12:06 am
  #60  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 10,904
It was a reasonable and perhaps defendable charge in the past however hotels started using this as a loophole for misleading advertising of "lower" rates. I believe airlines started witj reasonable taxes but started pushing this to extreme and that eventually drew attention.. hope for the same outcome with hotels
azepine00 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.