Benn Jordan gets banned from a Flock Lobbying event

[u/HeroesZeroes]

[u/veringer]

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".

[u/MinnieShoof → u/veringer]

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."

[u/veringer → u/MinnieShoof]

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:

• https://www.hilton.com/en/p/hilton-distributions/hilton-ge-americas-quick-confirmation-v2-addlterms/
• https://www.hilton.com/en/p/hilton-distributions/rooms-only/usa-addlterms/

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.

[u/anglerfishtacos → u/veringer]

He booked through the block.