Connect with us

Health

Hotel Charges $419 Smoking Fee to Non-Smoker, Sparks Outrage

Editorial

Published

on

A significant controversy has emerged after a non-smoker received a hefty charge of $419 for a smoking fee at the Rio Las Vegas. Mary Ferguson, a former anti-smoking advocate, was shocked to discover the fee added to her hotel bill during checkout. This incident raises concerns about the reliability of the sensors hotels use to detect smoking.

Ferguson and her husband, regular visitors to Las Vegas, chose the Rio for its recent renovations and a favorable deal during their stay in July 2023. Their trip proceeded without incident until they reached the checkout process. “That’s where we discovered this problem,” she remarked.

Upon reviewing her bill, Ferguson found the unexpected smoking fee. “I do not smoke,” she stated emphatically. “My husband does not smoke. We have never smoked.” With nearly two decades of experience as a health educator specializing in tobacco cessation, she has dedicated her career to promoting health and wellness.

On the night in question, the couple retired to their room early to avoid exposure to any smoke, as the hotel provides exclusively non-smoking accommodations. “We just don’t like to be around it,” she explained. Ferguson was perplexed when the hotel reported an extraordinarily high smoke index of 100, categorizing the air quality as “hazardous,” the highest level on their scale.

The hotel’s response claimed the smoke index was indicative of a serious smoking incident. As David Charns, an investigator from 8 News Now, pointed out, “They’re telling you that you survived, basically a fatal smoking event.” Ferguson and her husband were unaware of any issues during their stay; no staff had alerted them to a problem.

Travel experts advise patrons to document their stay meticulously. Peter Greenberg, CBS News Travel Editor, suggested taking photographs of any potential issues within the room to counteract unfair charges. He emphasized the importance of providing evidence, saying, “It’s your word against the hotel’s.”

Complaints to the Better Business Bureau regarding smoking violations at the Rio have increased, with 28 entries logged since March 2023. Many complainants, like Ferguson, assert they are non-smokers. The hotel’s management has responded to some complaints by stating that these violations might be isolated incidents.

Ferguson expressed her frustration with the situation, stating, “I don’t have a problem paying for something that was ours. It was not.” To aid customers facing similar challenges, Greenberg advised maintaining records of one’s medical history as proof of non-smoking status. Additionally, he noted that disputing the charge with credit card companies is often effective, given that they may waive the fee to avoid further complications.

In response to the controversy, a spokesperson for the Rio Las Vegas stated, “All guest rooms at Rio Las Vegas are non-smoking. We utilize air quality monitoring technology to enforce this policy, consistent with other properties in and around the Strip.” They also affirmed their commitment to ensuring a safe environment for all guests.

Following inquiries from 8 News Now, the Rio ultimately agreed to waive the disputed fee, providing some relief to Ferguson. This incident highlights the challenges consumers face in proving their innocence against automated systems used by hotels, raising questions about accountability and accuracy in the hospitality industry.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.