HB945 would create a new hotel guest notification and refund/cancellation framework in Hawaii law for “service disruptions.” The bill requires hotels to notify third-party booking vendors, prospective guests, and affected current guests when a disruption begins or when the hotel learns one may occur. The notice must describe the nature of the disruption and explain the guest’s right to cancel or terminate the reservation without fees or penalties in certain circumstances.
The bill also bars hotels from charging cancellation fees, penalties, or retaining deposits when a guest cancels before check-in because a stay or room could be substantially affected by a service disruption, unless the hotel gave the required prior notice. If the disruption arises after check-in, the hotel must notify the guest within 24 hours of learning of it, and guests may terminate the reservation without charges for the unused portion of the stay. The bill creates a private right of action with damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and treble-damages-style remedies for violations.
HB945 would add a new section to chapter 486K, Hawaii Revised Statutes, imposing affirmative disclosure duties on hotels and third-party vendors tied to reservations affected by disruptions. It would affect hotel operators, booking intermediaries, and guests by regulating reservation practices, refund retention, and notice content, and by defining specific events that qualify as a “service disruption,” including construction noise, pest infestations, loss of amenities or utilities, strikes or lockouts, and certain demonstrations. The bill would also expose violators to civil liability and statutory damages, increasing compliance obligations and potential litigation risk for the hospitality industry.
Based on the bill text, the measure appears strongly consumer-protective and tourism-oriented, with the legislature emphasizing traveler vulnerability and the importance of preserving confidence in Hawaii’s hotel sector. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available context. The overall tone of the bill is remedial and disclosure-focused rather than punitive, though it includes meaningful enforcement provisions.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of what counts as a service disruption and the operational burden on hotels. Hotels may object to mandatory notice for events such as construction, amenity outages, utilities interruptions, labor disputes, and nearby demonstrations, especially where timing is uncertain or notice must be given immediately to vendors and guests. Another likely issue is the bill’s strict no-fee/no-deposit-retention rule, which can require refunds even when disruptions arise after check-in, and the bill’s private enforcement scheme with treble damages, minimum damages, attorney’s fees, and injunctive relief. No specific stakeholder testimony was provided, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from recorded debate.