Recognizing a Case For Lawsuits Over Bad Hotel Publicity
By Steven D. Weber Founder, Weber Law, P.A. | June 10, 2018
Eventually every hospitality player is the subject of a negative news story, webpage, or some other source. Such negative publicity may be the result of a disaster, an unfortunate occurrence, and possibly entirely of no fault of the hospitality industry player. Evaluating how to respond to such events and circumstances is critical. Maybe negative publicity cannot be entirely avoided, but are there circumstances when negative publicity is actionable such that any damage can be compensated for?
Due to the internet, negative publicity may never be erased and may continue harming a hospitality brand for years to come. Hospitality players - and all other business entities - need to understand their options when confronted with such circumstances.
There are millions of stories in the news and on review sites about hospitality industry players. Some of these stories or reviews take on a life of their own and can hurt a brand. Claims may exist, like business defamation, disparagement, or tortious interference that may allow a hospitality brand to hold the maker of certain statements accountable for them. Such claims may exist in the hospitality industry context.
In a federal case from California, Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees Local 483, the court recited allegations that one of the defendants filed unfair labor practice charges against the plaintiff. In a newscast about the labor dispute, another of the defendants allegedly said that certain firings were illegal. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a single cause of action for defamation against certain defendants alleging that the statement on the newcast "that the federal government had found that the firings were illegal was false and exposed plaintiff to 'hatred, contempt, and ridicule.'" The plaintiff appealed from a lower court decision granting the defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's defamation complaint.
On appeal, the appellate court sustained the striking of the defamation complaint. The court reasoned that while the statement at issue could have been construed as false, the plaintiff had not met its burden of pleading a claim because the "plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of slander in its pleadings and supporting declarations that defendants made a false statement with malice." The court stated that "considering the broadcast as a whole, a viewer could not have reasonably understood [the defendant's] statement to mean that there had been a final determination that plaintiff had illegally fired the two employees."
In another case, Hotel Saint George Assocs. v. Morgenstern, which was considered by a New York federal court, the plaintiff "alleged in its complaint that defendants have publicly and falsely accused plaintiff of failing to maintain adequate security at the Hotel and that defendants had worked to create a perception that there has been an increase in crime in and around the Hotel." The plaintiff "alleged that these false accusations have resulted in damages reasonably believed to be in excess of seven million dollars." Among other claims, the plaintiff asserted a defamation claim.
The Hotel Business Review articles are free to read on a weekly basis, but you must purchase a subscription to access
our library archives. We have more than 5000 best practice articles on hotel management and operations, so our
knowledge bank is an excellent investment! Subscribe today and access the articles in our archives.