Comments on: Priceline Avoids Liability For Resort Fees Due To Its Onsite Disclosures–Singer v. Priceline https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/07/priceline-avoids-liability-for-undisclosed-resort-fees-due-to-its-onsite-disclosures-singer-v-priceline.htm Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:52:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jesse https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/07/priceline-avoids-liability-for-undisclosed-resort-fees-due-to-its-onsite-disclosures-singer-v-priceline.htm#comment-1601 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:52:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=16226#comment-1601 I don’t understand this: “The disclaimer also only highlighted to the consumer that the consumer may be required to pay extra charges directly to the hotel, which seems slightly different from what occurred here.”

Isn’t that exactly what occurred here? What’s the slight difference?

]]> By: Stacey Olliff https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/07/priceline-avoids-liability-for-undisclosed-resort-fees-due-to-its-onsite-disclosures-singer-v-priceline.htm#comment-1599 Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:37:00 +0000 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=16226#comment-1599 Good discussion of the case. Two comments:
1. First, a quibble: In the discussion it mentions that $488 for two nights for a hotel room that was advertised as $107 per night is not “a great reason to use Priceline.” But the facts were that the plaintiff got TWO hotel rooms for 2 nights each, so the $488 (once you added taxes/fees) was still a good deal, and the $488 wasn’t in dispute. (In a quick glance at the opinion, I don’t think it mentions the amount of the resort-charge that was being complained about, so hard to say how much of a rip-off it was, but most likely it was an added 30-40% bump on the cost of the stay, above the disclosed $488.)
2. Part of the real problem here is that Priceline could assign the reservation to whatever property they wanted at the same or higher star-rating, so there is no way in advance for the consumer to know whether there would in fact be a mandatory resort-fee and what the amount might be before making the bid. So you are somewhat playing Russian roulette if you are on a tight budget. Obviously, one solution here would be for mandatory resort-fees not included in the quoted room rate to be outlawed for reasons discussed in the article, or for Priceline to refuse to do business with properties that have a mandatory resort-fee (not very realistic). Another relatively simple solution would be for Priceline to give a just-in-time notice to the consumer (via pop-up or whatever) that says “We have selected a X-star hotel for you which has a mandatory resort fee of $XX per room per night. Do you accept that, or do you want a different hotel (that might have a lower star-rating), that has no mandatory resort fee?” Then the consumer would actually have a meaningful choice as part of the purchase process, rather than finding out about the rip-off fee at check-in. That solution would leave the choice in the consumer’s hands, since some people might be thrilled if they bid low on a 3-star-or-better hotel and were getting assigned a 5-star hotel, even with the resort-fee bump, while others on a budget may prefer a 3-star hotel with no resort fee. I think that would actually be in Priceline’s interests to add that consumer-friendly feature since it would encourage more people (like Eric) to use the blind bidding system with confidence they wouldn’t be ripped off on a mandatory fee without any real, actionable warning. (I would not have the same warning for optional fees like parking, wifi-in-room, etc. because while those are annoying and often a rip-off, there are ways to avoid them if you don’t mind finding a nearby parking garage or going to the lobby or Starbucks to access wifi, etc. so the truly budget-minded could still take advantage of the bargain-basement “deal” price while others voluntarily add to their costs for reasons of convenience.)

]]>