Let it go. You´re not going to get anything by suing in the US. It´s a waste of time and effort. Someone was rude to you, get over it.

Wait and see ...

The fact that you're apparently having a tough time finding a lawyer to take on this case should tell you something, no?

The fact that I'm not telling you something, should tell you something.

Considering that I am not just an anonymous poster, it would have been easy for you to find out that I won 2 court verdicts against the formerly richest man in the world (now Forbes Nr. 4). So, rest assured, finding a lawyer for a minor damage case in the US is not raising my hormone level.

Thomas Tusser said something on this subject, me thinks.

"I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed" Shakespeare

You forgot the "(attributed; probably apocryphal)" part.

Have to agree. Part of the fun when travelling to out of the way places is experiencing how much more relaxed peoples attitudes can be. Expecting a 4 star hotel in a place like that to be run the same as a 4 star in a large city is not always going to happen. Putting in a complaint to get some compensation is okay.....hiring a lawyer is overkill.

On TA the place gets okay reviews except one which looks like the OPs.

Everyone is relaxed, except a waiter who threatens to beat up a guest. And a GM who answers as follows:

Something smells at that place, and will blow up in the face of future guests.

Judge as subjectively as you like. But the objective legal situation is clear and awaits judgement.

Hmm, is it really okay for the local nr. 1 and most expensive hotel (€ 250 - 350 per night at the time) to have an approval rating of only 74% ? With 4 terrible and 10 poor ratings.

But that's not the point. Obviously criminal behavior of staff normally doesn't go on forever at a chain hotel, and in all likelihood doesn't reflect in Tripadvisor postings over time.

When a facility manager writes a reply with an excerpt like you posted, the original emailed complaint must be a doozy. Probably the only evidence required - as it no doubt will paint the "plaintiff" as a drama queen.

If you beat this horse long enough, you may reincarnate it - but It's doubtful.

Assuming that waitstaff did threaten violence, there's got to be way more to the story. The worst waitstaff I have ever encountered in my travels were indifferent, and those episodes weren't in Norway. For someone to go ballistic on a guest would take far more than sending a dish back or being a royal PITA.

After two weeks in Norway, my impression of everyone who took care of me was that they were well-trained and almost overly polite (compared to American hospitality)

While some of the more stupid lawsuits in America where people have collected large sums of money under questionable circumstances may make for good headlines overseas, that's not the way the system works overall.

Some bottom-feeder may take the case, fishing for a settlement - but it never goes past that. The Insurance company will tell said bottom-feeder to go pound sand, and it will all be over.

A clever lawyer will take the case on contingency, with plaintiff liable to pay his "expenses", and relieve the aggrieved party of some funds in the process, which will be a fitting end to the matter.

10 neutral witnesses to the contrary, from 5 countries, supporting the victim. After all it was in a bar-restaurant.

And don't forget that Spitsbergen is a weird place, without properly trained staff that will endure the cold and dark, and the island mainly getting mass tourism from cruises, and not the more demanding type.

Spitsbergen is partly Russian, not Norway proper (passport control), however it does have the Law of Jante syndrome.

This is wrong. Svalbard is Norwegian, but has a special status

Svalbard is, according to the Svalbard treaty a part of the Kingdom of Norway:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen

There are however some restrictions when it comes to taxation and establishment of military bases, and Norway has to let individuals of all signatory nations have equal rights to work, mining etc. Norway however can establish national parks and introduce legislation for Svalbard, as long as it affects all nationalities equally.

As all signatory powers have equal right to exploitation of natural resources, there has been a significant Soviet and later Russian presence on Spitsbergen (Pyramiden and Barentsburg), but this does NOT make Spitsbergen partly Russian.

The reason for any passport controls is that entry requirements are different for Svalbard and Norway.

Correct, technically it's in a Norwegian special area. By land ownership and ethnically, the second biggest town in Spitsbergen (Barentsburg) is exclusively Russian, as is newly revived Pyramiden.

Now there is a Chinese billionaire & arctic explorer entering Spitsbergen: Huang Nubo wants to build the first luxury hotel (German article). I hope he teaches the locals a lesson for this much needed upgrade of the island, but no doubt he will initially receive a xenophobic welcome ("exploitation").

No, Svalbard is not "technically (...) in a Norwegian special area". Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway, as the quote from the Svalbard treaty, which I quoted in my previous post, states ("the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen") . However, in this particular part of Norway, the citizens of certain other countries have the same rights as Norwegian citizens have, and the treaty puts some restrictions on the use e.g. for military purposes and on things like taxation. This special status, as defined by the treaty, doesn't make it "technically" anything but Norwegian. "Full and absolute sovereignity" does not mean "partly Russian", and Svalbard is certainly part of Norway when it comes to legal authority.

The OP's experience of being a victim of a crime by a hotel employee, and his dissatisfaction of not being sufficiently helped by the (absent) hotel manager is certainly understandable, but somehow I think that the OP's somewhat personal interpretation of current law on Svalbard, including his misunderstandings about the legal status of the archipelago is coloured by that dissatisfaction.

I am still not convinced that suing a Swedish/Belgian company in the US for neglicence by a manager working at a property under Norwegian jurisdiction, where the neglicence concerns an alleged criminal act by an employee, that has not been reported to the local police. But I might be wrong in that, and I am certainly interested in hearing the outcome.