653
Hotels have developed a new revenue stream: "algorithmic" smoke detectors (threadreaderapp.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Guests report getting billed hundreds of dollars for smoking, based on the readings of an "algorithmic" smoke detector. The sensor manufacturer markets its product as a way for hotels to unlock new revenue streams.

See also: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-county/marietta-hotel-fined-women-hundreds-smoking-they-say-other-activities-tripped-sensors/WPFWFT7INFGOLHR4HSQK7YIOKY/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

But when she disputed the charge with her credit card company, they sided with the hotel after it provided the credit card company the same smoke report it sent her.

They tried that. If the credit card denies it you could have a lawyer send a letter threatening legal action but that's all going to be at an extra cost unless you know an attorney or they think they could make enough to o do it on spec.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    A lawyer will send a demand letter, not an affidavit.

    An affidavit is for sworn testimony given under oath by someone who is unwilling or unable to appear on the witness stand.

    A demand letter is a formal written request for action or payment prior with a threat of legal action for noncompliance.

    If they ignore the demand letter then the next step is a civil suit. Depending on the amount this might end up in small claims. Also, tort cases only require a preponderance of evidence.

    A preponderance of evidence essentially means you only have to prove something is more likely than not which, in this case, would be pretty easy. The big issue is the expense of this process almost makes it not worth it.

    The American legal system favors those with resources.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. Whomever brings the suit needs to prove that it's more likely than not that they're were incorrectly fined.

    Since these devices seem to basically be VOC sensors it wouldn't be that hard to do this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Since these devices seem to basically be VOC sensors it wouldn't be that hard to do this.

    To a non-technically literate judge/jury. Many people just trust "the data" or "the authority" or "the technology".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I understand that, but bringing one of these sensors into the courtroom and turning on a Dyson air wrap, spraying hairspray, using baby powder etc. and then comparing the results would show the susceptibility of these to be wrong.

    It's a demonstrably flawed system so you just need to demonstrate the system in action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)