Recently, a tourist named Mr. Tang reported that after checking into the Beijing Wangfujing Hilton Hotel as a Diamond member, the hotel monitored his stay and fined him an additional 3,000 yuan because he did not return to his room at night.
On May 22, Mr. Tang told reporters: “Before checking in, the hotel required members to sign a commitment that they would pay a surcharge of 500 yuan per night if they violated the membership benefits transfer policy during their stay. However, I didn’t return to my room at night because I was adjusting to the time difference and exploring the city, only returning to the room in the morning. Isn’t it an invasion of privacy for the hotel to monitor guests’ movements within the premises?”
On May 24, a hotel front desk employee responded to reporters: “This is a basic internal audit to protect the rights of our members.” Later, Mr. Liu, a supervisor at the Hilton Hotel Group’s customer service center, confirmed to reporters: “The fine is indeed true, but the situation might be more complicated, and we will provide an answer within about two working days.” On May 25, Mr. Tang reported that the 3,000 yuan fine had been refunded. As of May 28, the Hilton Group had not responded to reporters’ inquiries.
**Guest Questions Hotel’s Authority**
Mr. Tang explained that he booked two rooms for three nights at the Beijing Wangfujing Hilton Hotel. During check-in, the front desk required members to sign a commitment: if the reservation is transferred in violation of the membership benefits during the stay, the hotel will charge a surcharge of 500 yuan per night, including breakfast, room upgrades, executive benefits, and welcome amenities.
Mr. Tang said: “After checking out, the hotel manager called me, saying they monitored my stay each night and found that I did not return to my room at night, so they charged an additional 500 yuan per room per night. I explained that I was out adjusting to the time difference and only returned to the room during the day to rest. However, the hotel staff did not accept my explanation and directly deducted 3,000 yuan from my deposit as the room fee for the fourth night. The charge was not labeled as a fine but as a room fee.”
On May 24, a reporter, posing as a consumer, called the Beijing Wangfujing Hilton Hotel for inquiries. The staff said: “According to the commitment signed by the customer, the staff monitored and found the customer did not return to the room at night, suspecting that the room was transferred, and thus charged the surcharge to protect other members’ rights. We need to screen customers who might be using Hilton membership benefits in non-compliant ways. We certainly have to protect the rights of hotel members and review necessary cases, as encouraged and supported by Hilton headquarters and the membership center.”
However, Mr. Tang disagreed with the hotel’s explanation. He emailed Hilton Group to report his experience at the Beijing Wangfujing Hilton Hotel. Mr. Tang said: “First, the hotel invades guests’ privacy by monitoring guests 24/7, observing when they enter and leave their rooms without informing them in advance. I would not stay at a hotel that constantly monitors its guests if I knew beforehand. Second, the hotel infringes on consumer rights. Has the membership commitment form and the disguised fine as a surcharge been reported to Hilton Group? The forced deduction of 3,000 yuan as a room fee without mutual consent or a consumption agreement is essentially a fine and should be labeled as such on the invoice. However, the hotel marked it as a room fee, making it difficult for me to argue. Isn’t this a violation of consumer rights?”
**Hilton Group Refunds the Charge**
On May 24, Mr. Liu, a supervisor at Hilton Hotel Group’s customer service center, told reporters: “We are aware of the customer’s complaint. The situation is complex, so we need to report it to the relevant public relations team, and a response might take about two working days.”
On May 25, Mr. Tang told reporters: “I have received an email reply from Hilton Group in English, and the 3,000 yuan ‘fine’ has been refunded. Additionally, the group offered extra benefits for my next trip as compensation, and I am generally satisfied with this resolution. According to the reply, Hilton Group did not find sufficient grounds for the fine, even with evidence from the hotel’s deputy manager. I appreciate the group’s fair and objective decision.”
Mr. Tang, a hotel enthusiast with extensive knowledge of various hotel brands, concluded: “This is the first time I have encountered such a situation, and it made me quite angry. I hope to get an explanation and response from both the Beijing Wangfujing Hilton Hotel and the Hilton Group China team.”
**Legal Opinions on Privacy and Unfair Terms**
Earlier, China News Weekly reported that Zhao Liangshan, a lawyer from Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, believed that hotel guests are consumers and the hotel should respect their privacy. The commitment form was unilaterally drafted by the hotel, imposing additional responsibilities on guests while exempting the hotel from liabilities, making it an unfair term and thus invalid. China’s Personal Information Protection Law stipulates that no organization or individual may illegally collect, use, process, transmit, or disclose others’ personal information. Even viewing public surveillance videos to track criminal suspects, find missing persons, or recover lost items requires proper procedures. Therefore, monitoring whether a guest stays in their room violates their privacy rights.
Fu Jian, a lawyer from Henan Zejin Law Firm, stated that hotels use surveillance to determine whether guests have stayed or transferred rooms, considering safety and economic benefits. As long as surveillance locations are compliant and video data is used reasonably, it typically does not infringe on privacy rights; otherwise, it constitutes a privacy violation.