Fox Sports News Host Erin Andrews’ US$55 million award in her civil lawsuit related to the secret recording and distribution of a nude video filmed during her stay at a Marriott hotel is significant for many reasons, but it also sends a warning to hotel owners and operators about potential legal exposure for failing to protect guests’ privacy.
The Nashville, Tennessee-based jury found operator Windsor Capital 49% at fault and stalker Michael David Barrett 51% at fault. It also found that Windsor was the agent of owner West End Hotel Partners, and that hotel operators were negligent for failing to protect the privacy of the sportscaster when she was a guest. Barrett, who had previously admitted to altering hotel room peepholes in Nashville and Columbus, Ohio, and taking nude videos of Andrews and posting them online, has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.
Defendant West End Hotel Partners had argued that Barrett’s criminal actions were not foreseeable and therefore the hotel had not breached any duty to Andrews as its guest. However, the jury determined that the hotel contributed significantly to the emotional distress experienced by Andrews. At the trial, plaintiffs offered expert testimony that Andrews suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of this incident.
Groundbreaking verdict
There are very few circumstances where the victim of a stalker video actually sees vindication in civil court. And a verdict of this size against a hotel that is almost completely based on a finding of emotional distress is exceedingly uncommon.
Notably, it appears that the jury decided not to believe either Barrett’s explanation of how he learned which room Andrews was booked into or defendants’ claims that they did not give him the room number. The jury likely concluded that he was voluntarily given her room number by a front desk agent. If correct, this is a clear breach of industry standards with respect to guest privacy.
Barrett’s explanation of how he got the room number put a spotlight on a potential weakness for most hotels: When an internal phone, such as at the reception desk of a restaurant as opposed to a true house phone in a public area, connects to a guests’ room, it usually will display the guest’s name and room number on the display screen.
Hotel operators and managers must take this opportunity to review their privacy practices with all personnel—not just front desk staff—because guest identities and room numbers must be kept confidential in all areas of the hotel. This means not letting guests access “internal” phones for any purpose and being aware at all times of people potentially looking over their shoulder at this information. It also means promptly collecting receipts where a guest has charged something to their room instead of letting it sit on the table for a while.
One of the issues raised at trial by the plaintiff’s expert was the lack of video surveillance in guest room hallways. Some chains employ it. Others don’t because of a perception that it potentially invades the guests’ privacy. This case should prompt owners and operators to revisit this issue if they are not currently employing guestroom hallway surveillance; such corridors are still considered a “public” space, even if access to guestroom floors is restricted by cardkey use in the elevator.
Protecting against fraudulent lawsuits
One additional concern for hotel owners arising from this highly publicized verdict is the potential for fraudulent suits and scams. Hotels may see an increase of claims from individuals claiming that their privacy was compromised because their room number was not kept confidential and it caused them emotional distress. Accordingly, now is the time for hotel management to comprehensively retrain staff on guest safety and security issues.
The true financial impact to defendants from this verdict remains to be seen. Defendants will likely appeal the verdict, if only to negotiate a smaller payout in exchange for foregoing the appellate process and eliminating the possibility that an appellate court might alter or vacate the verdict.
This verdict sends a clear signal to the hospitality industry: Hotel owners and operators need to review and fortify their practices with respect to how room number information is handled and how to address guest requests for specific rooms. What was once unforeseeable is now an unfortunate reality of the hospitality industry.
David M. Samuels, Esq., is partner and chair of the Hospitality Industry Group at Michelman & Robinson LLP, a US law firm.