• Cherry@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 days ago

    £500 is excessive. And fighting guests over your scummy practice. Not on.

    Hope a regulator steps in and looks at this but not hopeful.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is Amerikkka. The regulators exist to ensure that there are as many scams running as possible.

        • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          You are correct. Unfortunately in many sectors in the US that’s not what’s happening. Of course, it’s not true across the board. There are exceptions, like the NTSB. But then the NTSB can only make recommendations, and it’s enforcement counterparts, like the FAA, have no teeth. The FAA is now in essence run by the airlines the agency is supposed to regulate.

          And until enough blood is spilled, this will continue

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            i think you might have completely misread my comment, regulatory capture is intentional and symbiotic.

            the regulators let the corporations poison the groundwater, and in turn the corporations give the regulators a rusty trombone.

    • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think you completely missed the point of the investigation - it’s not about the hotel’s charges, it’s about an ai-powered smoke “detection” system that the creators are advertising as inherently increasing revenue, suggesting a scheme between the hotel and company making the detectors to defraud the hotel’s customers.