It is documented on the rates page - click the �i� next to the note about a resort fee.

• Daily Enhanced High-Speed Internet Access
• Daily Sunrise Yoga and/or Water Aerobics
• Welcome drink for 2 adults per room

• Children Under 4 Eat Free (up to 2 children per room)
• Daily Food & Beverage Offering on the Beach/Pool Area (e.g. smores, gelato, frozen fruits, smoothies, cheesecake pop, fresh guacamole & tortilla chips)
• Daily use of Steam & Sauna for 2 adults per room

Of course not, -- the price is listed as $15 including . . . ." However,


Exactly. It doesn't say anything about the benefits that supposedly are provided by the fee being unavailable because you aren't paying the fee. If that were the case, it would say something more along the lines of "Destination fee exempt, and the benefits normally included with the fee will be available for purchase at additional cost." IMO if the rate is "Destination fee exempt" you are not being told that you won't get the benefits, only that you won't have to pay for them. Maybe the hotel has decided to give you the benefits because you're a regular guest, have elite status, or for some other reason. This is something that I'd love to test in court.

Since you are not charged a fee, there is no loss. What exactly is your case in court?

Better course if file a complaint with the state attorney general for deceptive pricing/advertising.

My case in court? Just this: "IMO if the rate is 'Destination fee exempt' you are not being told that you won't get the benefits, only that you won't have to pay for them." If you're then denied the benefits because you're not paying, there's your case. And, sure, going the enforcement route by consumer protection or the attorney general would be equally effective (or not). But I wouldn't have the fun of doing it myself!

There's an old chestnut about anyone who would represent themselves in court that seems very apt here.

The progression is humorous :
"Mandatory destination fees are scams because they don't include any additional benefits"
<Hotels specifically add benefits you get in exchange for paying the destination fee>
"I shouldn't have to pay the mandatory destination fee."
<Ok fine>
"I should still get the benefits and now I will sue you."
​​​​

The court wouldn�t even accept your case. In a civil suit, you must have suffered a loss or injury. It would be hard to spin something you didn�t pay for as a loss.

A benefit promised but not provided?

I'm a litigator by profession. Doesn't mean that I'll win, of course, but I do know how to do it.

Yes, the chestnut I refer to of course applies to lawyers representing themselves as well. I agree that that certainly doesn't mean you will win.
As a consumer litigator myself, I would not put my name on a pleading based on your....theory... that being exempt from the requirement to purchase something is a promise to receive the otherwise purchased goods/services for free. I'd cite the case law that says otherwise, but you know how to do it.

It depends on precisely how everything is worded, and that likely varies from property to property.

​​​​​​Seems like maybe you shouldn't be running to litigate without the precise wording then, or at least are backtracking from your previous position.

Anyway, it seems that many of us expect that when we are exempt from a mandatory extra fee, that means we don't have the obligation to pay that extra fee--nor do we get the benefits that come along with paying that extra fee. The albeit unscientific sample suggests that any argument that a reasonable consumer would obviously assume otherwise might not be strong.

Not backtracking at all, but, of course one would have to have the actual wording.

Has anyone ever been to a resort when they were told that they can't, for example, use a beach chair because they didn't pay the resort fee? To me, this seems like an unlikely outcome, because 1) is the hotel's information system sufficiently robust that the beach staff will know who paid and who didn't, and 2) at least in the U.S., where tipping is more or les required, I have difficulty imagining someone trying to hand a beach attendant, say, a $10 tip for a beach chair and him/her declining it.

If everyone were entitled to use a beach chair, why would anyone pay a resort fee?

I agree. But I still want to see a beach attendant turn down the $10 tip because I'm not paying a resort fee.

At the risk of soundling like the old man I am, I remember the good old days when beach chairs and the lke weren't extra. One might assume, not unreasonably, that beach and pool lounges are included at a beach resort. What about towels, -- is one allowed to use a beach/pool towel if not paying the resort fee? Perhaps the resort would prefer that I walk back through the interior to my room dripping water along the way . . . .

As you said earlier, what the resort fee covers will depend on the specific language of the fee. You can make a hypothetical where pool access isn't covered by a fee but pool towels are. You can make a hypothetical where mattress pads are covered by the fee as well.

We've gone far afield from the original topic of the thread of course- I am fairly confident that the Westin DC City Center's fee doesn't cover beach towels, and the benefit the OP is being denied wasn't towels.
​​​​​