HB945 would add a new section to Hawaii’s hotel law requiring hotels to notify third-party booking vendors, prospective guests, and affected current guests when a “service disruption” begins or may occur. The bill defines service disruptions broadly to include major construction noise, certain pest infestations, loss of advertised amenities or room features for 48 hours or more, utility outages lasting 24 hours or more, strikes or lockouts, and lawful picketing or demonstrations that create or are likely to create disturbing noise.
The bill also gives guests a right to cancel without financial penalty in specified circumstances. If a guest cancels before check-in because a room or stay could be substantially affected by a service disruption, the hotel may not charge fees or keep deposits unless it had already provided the required notice. If the disruption arises after check-in, the hotel must notify the guest within 24 hours, and guests may terminate the reservation or use of hotel services without fees or forfeited deposits for any unused portion of the stay. The bill creates private enforcement remedies, including treble damages, a minimum $1,000 recovery, attorney’s fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
Impact
HB945 would amend chapter 486K, Hawaii Revised Statutes, by creating a new hotel disclosure and guest-remedy framework tied to service disruptions. It would impose affirmative notice duties on hotels and, in some cases, on the hotel’s third-party reservation channels, while limiting hotels’ ability to retain deposits or impose cancellation penalties when disruptions are not disclosed or arise after check-in. The bill also authorizes civil enforcement by injured guests, increasing potential liability for hotels that fail to comply.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a consumer-protection approach that also emphasizes preserving confidence in Hawaii’s tourism industry. Based on the bill text and its referral status, the measure appears to be framed as a guest-rights and transparency bill rather than a punitive regulation of hotels. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-disclosure, pro-consumer framing.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the definition of “service disruption” and the scope of hotel liability. Hotels may object to having to disclose conditions such as demonstrations, strikes, construction, or amenity outages and to allowing cancellations without penalty even when disruptions are temporary or outside the hotel’s full control. Another likely issue is the bill’s private right of action and treble-damages remedy, which could be viewed as creating significant litigation exposure. On the other hand, supporters would likely emphasize that guests need timely, conspicuous notice and a fair exit option when advertised accommodations are materially affected.