Marriott Hotels reveals massive data breach of personal and financial information of millions of customer — Lawyers Open Class Action Investigation 

 

 

Marriott Hotels revealed a massive data breach which exposed the personal and financial information of nearly a half billion customers who made reservations at its Starwood properties over the past four years. Marriott says that for approximately 327 million people, the breach exposed their names, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, date of birth and arrival and departure information. For millions others, their credit card numbers and card expiration dates were potentially compromised.

Marriott said it will begin emailing guests affected by the breach and has created an informational website. There’s also a call center that’s been set up. The company said it’s giving guests a free membership to WebWatcher, a personal information monitoring service. It’s also telling guests to monitor their loyalty accounts for suspicious activity, change their account passwords and check credit card statements for unauthorized activity.

At this point the breach is limited to Marriott’s Starwood properties which include:  W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Méridien Hotels & Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels that participate in the Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) program.

 

Expedia, Inc., Travelocity, Booking.com and others named in lawsuit accusing them of fixing prices on hotel rooms

A class-action lawsuit was filed against several online travel sites including Expedia, Inc. (Nasdaq:EXPE), Travelocity, Booking.com, a subsidiary of Priceline.com (Nasdaq:PCLN), and the nation’s largest hotel operators including Hilton Hotel, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts, a subsidiary of Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide (NYSE:HOT), and Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE:MAR), claiming the two groups conspired to use their market dominance to fix prices on hotel rooms across the country.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of hotel-room purchasers nationally and alleges that the online hotel retailers conspired with major hotel defendants to secretly create and enforce Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) agreements to thwart competition on hotel room prices, especially from price-cutting online retailers.

The complaint contends that the defendants’ unlawful conduct caused plaintiffs and other class members to overpay for their purchases of room reservations and seeks to represent all consumers who have purchased hotel rooms from the online retailer defendants.

According to the complaint, online travel sites account for as much as 50 percent of hotel bookings in the United States and traditionally operate under one of two models. Under the agency model, online retailers charge a service fee to a hotel operator on a transaction basis for booking customers, and that customer pays the hotel directly at a rate set by the hotel.

Under the merchant model, online retailers purchase rooms outright at a negotiated rate from the hotel, and then resell the rooms to consumers at a higher price, increasing or decreasing margins depending on competitive influences.

More recently, a new model has emerged that has cut into the traditional online retailers’ profits, the complaint contends, and has led to the creation of the RPM agreements. In this model, known as the Wholesale Model, third-party companies buy up unsold blocks of rooms at the last-minute and resell them to smaller price-cutting online retailers, eroding the profits of the traditional online retailers.

Knowing hotels cannot afford to lose access to online distribution networks, online retailers devised an illegal scheme, extracting agreements from the hotels that online retailers may not sell rooms below the RPM rates even through the wholesale model on penalty of termination and as a condition of doing business through the online retailers, the lawsuit contends.

The complaint states that the online retailer defendants often use terms like “best price guarantee” to create the impression of a competitive market, but in truth these are nothing more than a cover for the price-fixing conspiracy.

The suit alleges that the defendants’ activities violate both the federal antitrust laws, as well as California’s Cartwright Act.