Recently, a man from mainland China checked into the Hilton Hotel in Wangfujing, Beijing with his family, booking 2 rooms and staying for 3 nights. Because he didn’t return to his room to sleep at night, the hotel suspected him of transferring a member-priced room and charged him an additional 3000 yuan. Mr. Tang questioned the hotel’s monitoring of guest movements as an invasion of privacy.
A man from mainland China recently revealed that on May 9th, when he and his family checked in at the front desk of the Hilton Hotel in Wangfujing, Beijing, they were asked to sign a pledge stating that they wouldn’t illegally transfer member privileges during their stay. The pledge specifically targeted “Hilton Honors Members,” stipulating that if any violation of transferring member privileges was found, the hotel would charge an additional 500 yuan per room per night.
After checking out, hotel staff called the man to inform him that they had monitored and confirmed he didn’t stay in the room at night, thus according to the pledge, an extra charge of 500 yuan per room per night was incurred, totaling 3000 yuan for the 3-day stay.
On May 28th and 29th, several Chinese media outlets reported on the man’s ordeal. According to “Upstream News,” the man surnamed Tang explained that as a diamond card member, he checked into the Hilton Hotel in Wangfujing, Beijing. Upon arrival, he was asked to sign the “pledge.” Tang clarified that he stayed in the rooms himself without transferring any membership benefits and only went out at night due to jet lag, resting in the hotel during the day. He believed that his decision on when to return to the room for rest was his personal freedom, making the hotel’s deduction unreasonable.
He further questioned whether the “pledge” of the Hilton Hotel in Wangfujing belonged to “bullying terms.” Monitoring guests’ nighttime stays and the subsequent actions regarding consumer privacy rights may violate the Consumer Rights Protection Law. The mandatory deduction of 3000 yuan as room charges without consumer consent seemed more like a fine, and should have been clearly stated on the bill or invoice. Tang raised concerns about whether this was infringement on consumer rights.
In response, hotel staff defended their actions by stating that monitoring and requesting additional fees were measures to protect the interests of other members when suspects don’t return to their rooms at night, presuming they transferred member-priced rooms.
Mr. Tang didn’t agree with the hotel’s explanation and reached out to the Hilton Group via email to disclose his experience. On May 25th, he received an English email from the Hilton Group confirming the refund of 3000 yuan. The group also promised some additional benefits for his upcoming travel. From the email response, Tang understood that the Hilton Hotel Group believed the penalty imposed by the involved hotel was not justified, and he respected and appreciated the group’s fair and objective decision.
Netizens also criticized the actions of the hotel in question. Some commented, “While there are indeed higher-tier members selling benefits, it’s excessive for the hotel to monitor guests like this.” Others questioned, “Being fined for not staying overnight? What hotel penalizes guests for that?” Some expressed concerns, “Being monitored even when staying at a hotel, who would dare to stay at your property?”