What specific Nebraska laws were Hilton alleged to have violated in the lawsuit related to Embassy Suites?
Embassy_Suites Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
ng misrepresentations or misleading customers, and comply with Texas law.
State of Nebraska v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc. (District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, Case No. D02CI190002366).
On July 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed suit against Hilton alleging the violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act in relation to how mandatory guest fees are disclosed to consumers. Mandatory guest fees are amounts that hotels charge guests for certain amenities separate and apart from the daily room rate, which may be called by
different names such as resort fees, urban fees, or destination fees. Plaintiff alleged that Hilton failed to include mandatory guest fees in advertisements and disclosures made to consumers during the telephone booking process, and improperly disclosed these fees only at the end of the online booking process. Plaintiff also alleged misrepresentation in instances when hotels indicated that mandatory guest fees pay for certain amenities when those amenities were routinely provided at no cost or bundled in the room rate, and/or when amenities were advertised as free but actually covered by the mandatory guest fee. Plaintiff sought an injunction, restitution for consumers, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2024, without admitting any fault, Hilton entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and agreed to pay $300,000
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 19–22)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Embassy Suites's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a lawsuit was filed against Hilton in Nebraska alleging violations of specific state laws. The suit, State of Nebraska v. Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc., alleged violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. These allegations stemmed from how Hilton disclosed mandatory guest fees to consumers.
The core of the complaint focused on Hilton's alleged failure to include mandatory guest fees in advertisements and disclosures during telephone bookings. The lawsuit also claimed that Hilton improperly disclosed these fees only at the end of the online booking process. The plaintiff in the case, the State of Nebraska, also pointed to alleged misrepresentations where Hilton indicated that mandatory guest fees covered certain amenities when those amenities were either routinely provided at no cost, bundled in the room rate, or advertised as free but actually covered by the mandatory guest fee.
The State of Nebraska sought an injunction against Hilton, restitution for affected consumers, civil penalties, and coverage of attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2024, Hilton settled the case without admitting any fault. As part of the settlement, Hilton agreed to pay $300,000 and to clearly disclose all mandatory fees and the total price for bookings. This settlement highlights the importance of transparent fee disclosure in the hospitality industry and the potential legal and financial consequences of non-compliance.