Fontainebleau alleged to have revoked a $2000 room comp at checkout

[MisterV]

Methinks the credit card dispute will be too subtle for the card company to understand.

Ah, but does that really matter?

I've no experience with such things but were I to instruct VISA not to pay a charge which I dispute in writing I do not think they will try to decide whether or not my objection is too "subtle" fo obey: rather they should just honor my request as a card holder and not pay it, forcing it to the next level.

If in fact they do engage in some sort of evidence weighing at the beginning I'd be shocked.

[Tasha]

Instead of possibly going to COURT over this, shouldn't he just report it to the Manager and make the Manager reverse the $2,000 charge? And possibly give him a free room in the near future?

[Rob.Singer]

Methinks the credit card dispute will be too subtle for the card company to understand.

Ah, but does that really matter?

I've no experience with such things but were I to instruct VISA not to pay a charge which I dispute in writing I do not think they will try to decide whether or not my objection is too "subtle" fo obey: rather they should just honor my request as a card holder and not pay it, forcing it to the next level.

If in fact they do engage in some sort of evidence weighing at the beginning I'd be shocked.

Instruct VISA not to pay a charge? You report a disputed charge, they issue a temporary credit to your account, they request any supporting documentation you have that 100% proves your claim, they contact the hotel/casino for any evidence they may have that supports their position, and the side with the indisputable facts wins. It's that simple.

If this guy has rock solid evidence that he was checking into a room that was fully comped without stipulations of any kind which he may not have met, he will easily prevail. But if there is any grey area at all, the charge will stand.

As our GREAT President-elect keeps on preaching to every American: "I will bring simple common sense back to this country".

This is one of those examples.

[Tasha]

Methinks the credit card dispute will be too subtle for the card company to understand.

Ah, but does that really matter?

I've no experience with such things but were I to instruct VISA not to pay a charge which I dispute in writing I do not think they will try to decide whether or not my objection is too "subtle" fo obey: rather they should just honor my request as a card holder and not pay it, forcing it to the next level.

If in fact they do engage in some sort of evidence weighing at the beginning I'd be shocked.

Instruct VISA not to pay a charge? You report a disputed charge, they issue a temporary credit to your account, they request any supporting documentation you have that 100% proves your claim, they contact the hotel/casino for any evidence they may have that supports their position, and the side with the indisputable facts wins. It's that simple.

If this guy has rock solid evidence that he was checking into a room that was fully comped without stipulations of any kind which he may not have met, he will easily prevail. But if there is any grey area at all, the charge will stand.

As our GREAT President-elect keeps on preaching to every American: "I will bring simple common sense back to this country".

This is one of those examples.

Hmm. But it seems that the Host just SAID the hotel room was going to be comped but there was nothing in writing. He'll have an uphill battle if it wasn't put in writing. Hmm. As I write this, could the Host have had a personal grudge against the guest? For example, if the guest ended up being someone who screwed the Host over in the past? You never know. I find it weird that a Host would retroactively reverse the comped room after the guest already left. A personal grudge for being screwed over by the guest in the past would be a viable motive. :/

[DGenBen]

Ah, but does that really matter?

I've no experience with such things but were I to instruct VISA not to pay a charge which I dispute in writing I do not think they will try to decide whether or not my objection is too "subtle" fo obey: rather they should just honor my request as a card holder and not pay it, forcing it to the next level.

If in fact they do engage in some sort of evidence weighing at the beginning I'd be shocked.

Instruct VISA not to pay a charge? You report a disputed charge, they issue a temporary credit to your account, they request any supporting documentation you have that 100% proves your claim, they contact the hotel/casino for any evidence they may have that supports their position, and the side with the indisputable facts wins. It's that simple.

If this guy has rock solid evidence that he was checking into a room that was fully comped without stipulations of any kind which he may not have met, he will easily prevail. But if there is any grey area at all, the charge will stand.

As our GREAT President-elect keeps on preaching to every American: "I will bring simple common sense back to this country".

This is one of those examples.

Hmm. But it seems that the Host just SAID the hotel room was going to be comped but there was nothing in writing. He'll have an uphill battle if it wasn't put in writing. Hmm. As I write this, could the Host have had a personal grudge against the guest? For example, if the guest ended up being someone who screwed the Host over in the past? You never know. I find it weird that a Host would retroactively reverse the comped room after the guest already left. A personal grudge for being screwed over by the guest in the past would be a viable motive. :/

It varies by casino but usually when a host makes a comped reservation you will receive an email confirmation of the reservation from the casino showing the rate as comped.

[jpfromla]

Instruct VISA not to pay a charge? You report a disputed charge, they issue a temporary credit to your account, they request any supporting documentation you have that 100% proves your claim, they contact the hotel/casino for any evidence they may have that supports their position, and the side with the indisputable facts wins. It's that simple.

If this guy has rock solid evidence that he was checking into a room that was fully comped without stipulations of any kind which he may not have met, he will easily prevail. But if there is any grey area at all, the charge will stand.

As our GREAT President-elect keeps on preaching to every American: "I will bring simple common sense back to this country".

This is one of those examples.

Hmm. But it seems that the Host just SAID the hotel room was going to be comped but there was nothing in writing. He'll have an uphill battle if it wasn't put in writing. Hmm. As I write this, could the Host have had a personal grudge against the guest? For example, if the guest ended up being someone who screwed the Host over in the past? You never know. I find it weird that a Host would retroactively reverse the comped room after the guest already left. A personal grudge for being screwed over by the guest in the past would be a viable motive. :/

It varies by casino but usually when a host makes a comped reservation you will receive an email confirmation of the reservation from the casino showing the rate as comped.

And when you check-in, the folio should say comped and at checkout, too. The mailer might have a disclaimer regarding offer/play. Not familiar with Fountainebeau routine on comps. If the host said, "I'll take care of you at the end", he might be screwed.

[Dan Druff]

Dan Druff what is your basis for calling the reversal of promised or implied comps "illegal" ? I'd call it unethical or perhaps a breach of an implied or actual contract, but not illegal.

As far as this actual situation, did the guy have a written (such as some kind of emailed or mailed offer) for the 3 night room comp, or a verbal promise from the host? Both enforceable but one easier to enforce than the other.

Very simple.

I own the Druff Casino in Vegas, and I personally invite MDawg to stay for a comp reservation in a nice suite, because kewlJ says MDawg is a huge whale and a losing player.

MDawg then proceeds to stay 5 nights in the nice suite, but doesn't play at all.

MDawg then checks out of the room and pays $0.00.

I see this, get pissed off, and charge MDawg $50,000, claiming the nice suite is worth $10,000/night.

Do you think this would be legal?

Of course not. Because MDawg never entered into a contract to pay $10,000/night. I just decided on my own that the room was worth that, enticed MDawg to stay there for free, and changed the price after he left.

Totally illegal.

Now, if MDawg showed up to check in, and I said, "Hey I changed my mind. Wizard said you're a winning player, so if you want the suite, it'll be $10k/night", that would be legal, even if I previously sent a confirmation email saying the room was comped. That's because it would be my right to revoke a comp room at any time, but not after it's already been stayed in as comped!

BOTTOM LINE: You can revoke yet-to-be-redeemed comps, but you cannot retroactive uncomp a product/service already used.

[Dan Druff]

With that said, it's correct that this will be difficult to prove to the credit card company unless the guy has documentation that it was offered as comped.

If he can produce that, he will likely win the dispute.

If he can't, he may or may not win, depending upon whether the casino responds, and what they say.

If the casino fails to respond, he will win by default.

But that's not the best way to handle it, as it will likely result in you being banned.

The correct way to handle it is to get to the front desk manager, calmly explain everything, and get them to fix it. If that fails, submit a Gaming complaint. If that fails, charge it back.

[MDawg]

Dan Druff, you are definitely spot on with calling UNKewlJ the most prolific liar these forums have ever seen, but no one is going to slap the cuffs on that host ("illegal") it would be a civil matter, although I agree - depending on collection tactics it could rise to the level of criminal extortion.

[MisterV]

Sounds like a form of fraud.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

NRS 205.380  Obtaining money, property, rent or labor by false pretenses.

1.  A person who knowingly and designedly by any false pretense obtains from any other person any chose in action, money, goods, wares, chattels, effects or other valuable thing, including rent or the labor of another person not his or her employee, with the intent to cheat or defraud the other person, is a cheat, and, unless otherwise prescribed by law, shall be punished:

(a) If the value of the thing or labor fraudulently obtained was less than $1,200, for a misdemeanor, and must be sentenced to restore the property fraudulently obtained if it can be done, or tender payment for rent or labor.

(b) If the value of the thing or labor fraudulently obtained was $1,200 or more but less than $5,000, for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

(c) If the value of the thing or labor fraudulently obtained was $5,000 or more but less than $25,000, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

(d) If the value of the thing or labor fraudulently obtained was $25,000 or more but less than $100,000, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and by a fine of not more than $10,000.

(e) If the value of the thing or labor fraudulently obtained was $100,000 or more, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 20 years, and by a fine of not more than $15,000.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

obtaining rent by false pretenses

But no, I cannot see LVPD charging the casino; they'll probably say "It's a civil matter."

[DGenBen]

Just imagine what kind of penalties Fontainebleau could get for this.

Scott Sibella got a whole 12 months probation and a $9,500 fine for allowing money laundering at his casino.