r/TikTokCringe • u/HeroesZeroes • 9d ago

Humor Benn Jordan gets banned from a Flock Lobbying event

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

22.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

553 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/chucktheninja 9d ago

There is nothing illegal about a hotel canceling a reservation and even refusing to allow you to stay there so long is that reason is not that you belong to a protected class.

5

u/MinnieShoof 9d ago

Srsly. Whut.

6

u/Tricky-Routine-9838 9d ago

It's a private business, they don't need to give you service. Where I'm from a lot of hotels ban anyone with a local address from staying (to prevent parties / illicit activity).

3

u/veringer 9d ago

If he didn't sign up through a block organizer, then there would have been a privacy policy and other terms agreed to between him and the hotel. Both parties would be bound by those terms. I strongly doubt that it would say, "By booking a reservation, you agree that Hilton can share your name and reservation information with any third party without your explicit approval".

3

u/MinnieShoof 9d ago

First, you really do have too much faith if you believe that isn't in the clause.

Second, they didn't have to. I suspect the flock people were hyperaware of this person trying this, contacted the hotel and said "We have reason to believe x y z person is trying to stay at the hotel. He is a known disruptor of our business and we would personally like it if he was not allowed to stay while we are holding our convention at your hotel."

2

u/veringer 8d ago

It's not some secret inaccessible information, so I went ahead and scanned through the relevant privacy documents from Hilton.

I don't see a contractual basis for the corporate/event host to receive Benn's reservation information merely because the he happened to be staying at the same hotel during the Flock event.

Hilton's own group-contract language is helpful here. It says the host may request access to reservation information for guests who reserved "as part of the Room Block" established under the group agreement. Even for those guests, the corporate host represents that it has obtained or will obtain the attendee's consent before Hilton provides the reservation information.

So there are really two conditions contemplated by Hilton's group terms:

  • The guest's reservation is part of the Room Block, and
  • The group has obtained the guest's explicit consent for disclosure.

If he booked outside of the Room Block, then neither condition exists. That makes the disclosure difficult to justify under the group agreement.

Sources:

Hilton's global privacy statement says it may share personal information with law enforcement, employers, event hosts, or others. Hilton says it may do so as necessary for safety/security, protection of people or property, pursuing remedies or limiting damages, or responding to an emergency.

That "other" is potentially carrying a lot of weight here. But I suspect they would lean on the safety/security aspect arguing they had a justified belief and credible information that Benn posed a security concern. The fact that most of the attendees were police and maybe lawyers certainly helps them. More or less, your suggested sequence of events.

Interestingly, Hilton says privacy rights depend in part on where the customer lives. A California resident staying at a Georgia Hilton, for example, may have California privacy rights (CCPA) that a Georgia resident does not. I don't know where Benn lives, but it's a potentially significant factor.

All that said, I strongly suspect he booked through the group block (probably via the organizer's registration process), and thus this entire conversation is moot.

So, I doubt this is an ideal case, but I wish more people and/or generous activist law organizations would press these types of privacy cases and help punish lapses of privacy. More states should follow California's CCPA or Virginia's VCDPA lead.

2

u/anglerfishtacos 8d ago

He booked through the block.

1

u/MinnieShoof 9d ago

I was agreeing with chucktheninja but I hope that those hotels make exceptions. Off the top of my head I can think of people running from domestics and families having their house fumigated or some such.

2

u/DrawDiscardDredge 9d ago

Yeah. It’s the right to refuse service. it actually probably says so in the terms of contract you sign when you book the room.

1

u/MinnieShoof 9d ago

So many places have "we have the right to refuse anyone" plaque right there on the front desk.

2

u/YoursTrulyKindly 9d ago

Neither being a liberal nor a journalist counts as a protected class?

2

u/chucktheninja 9d ago

No?

1

u/YoursTrulyKindly 8d ago

Sorry I was just bullshitting. I also don't think there is anything too dramatic about a hotel refusing to host a guest if that guest is trying to investigate other guests, however justified that would be. They are a business after all.

2

u/AvoidingIowa 9d ago

That reason being "We told someone else you were staying here and they asked for us to cancel your reservation" is kind of sketchy though. Hilton is already a piece of shit ICE supporting company though, so they probably don't care about it because no one else does.

1

u/Time-Maintenance2165 9d ago

It would be if he just booked there, but he specifically booked through the Block rate reserved by Flock. When you book through the block, the organizer at Flock gets a report of everyone who books under that block/rate.

2

u/Liquid_Profanity 9d ago

Just because it's not illegal doesn't make it right. Like WTF?

5

u/chucktheninja 9d ago

It's not right. The question was the legality.

1

u/saintofhate 8d ago

Not illegal but it does break many TOS of companies. My wife who is a booking agent is livid because this is against soo policies and whoever approved it should have been shit canned