By Harrison Weber | Venture Beat
File this one under “hotels that don’t ‘get’ social media.”
A Hudson, New York hotel has an interesting policy for wedding guests: For every negative review left on Yelp, the company fines the bride and groom a hefty $500. The policy was first reported by Page Six.
The hotel in question, the Union Street Guest House, described the official policy on its website as a solution to unappreciative guests. Later, the hotel removed the warning and said it was just a joke. Here’s what the policy stated before it was removed [emphasis ours]:
If your guests are looking for a Marriott type hotel they may not like it here. Therefore: If you have booked the Inn for a wedding or other type of event anywhere in the region and given us a deposit of any kind for guests to stay at USGH there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH placed on any internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event
Kindly, the Union Street Guest House promised to refund this fee “once the review is taken down.” That’s nice. However, a quick look at the hotel’s Yelp page reveals significant backlash over the policy.
Rose Law Group Cyber Law attorney Chris Ingle comments:
“The legality of such a clause is doubtful. In Arizona our courts have been nice enough to provide consumers with protection against contract clauses that they might not expect to be included in an agreement. The case is Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co, 140 Ariz. 383, 682 P.2D 388 (1984), and it stands for the proposition that a clause that a consumer would not expect to be in an agreement, and which is buried in the boilerplate language of the contract, may be held unenforceable. There are similar cases in various jurisdictions across the United States. I think there is also an argument to be made that the clause is unenforceable because it attempts to be a liquidated damages clause that works as a penalty, and also because it creates uncertainty about the cost of the contract. After all, the wedding party is not going to have control over what the guests may or may not post online. The wedding party has absolutely no idea how much these fines could add up to. There is a lot of uncertainty there. Plus, it helps to remember that judges are just regular people. If they see a case like this they may very well ask themselves how they would feel if this type of a clause was used against them. I don’t think many people would view the penalty clause favorably, judges included.
The bigger danger to this company, though, is the bad publicity and consumer response. This company was trying to protect their reputation, but ended up shooting themselves in the foot. Now all anyone will ever remember about this company is that they’re the people who try to penalize people for expressing their honest opinion. A better approach would have been to simply make a good effort to always provide top quality service. Make sure everyone has a great time so that there is very little possibility of a bad review in the first place. And if there is a bad review, the company should respond in a nice and helpful manner. Best practice would be to post a response, investigate the customer’s concerns, and see what can be done to improve the experience or “make things right” with that customer. That will help the company improve its own services and may turn that negative review into a positive one.
In fact, we have advised companies on how to respond to these exact types of issues. We represent a number of consumer complaint websites and we have a lot of experience with online reviews and defamation. If a company finds themselves in a sticky situation like this and needs help on the best way to address it they should consult with an expert before they do anything else. A little bit of advice up front can save a company millions in the long run.”
To further discuss this topic or anything related to cyber law, Chris Ingle can be reached at cingle@roselawgroup.com
