Source: ILlinois Bar Journal

A corporation is not liable if a member hotel reveals a guest identity and room number without the guest's consent. 

Andrews v. Marriott International, Inc., 2016 IL App (1st) 122731

The Illinois Appellate Court held that a corporation was not liable where it did not undertake a privacy standard to refrain from identifying hotel guests or their room numbers to others without the guest's consent.

In 2008, the plaintiff, Erin Andrews, stayed at the Blackwell Inn., it disclosed the details of Andrews' hotel arrangements to Barrett without the knowledge or consent of Andrews. Blackwell Inn then assigned Barrett to the room next to Andrews. Barrett retrofitted the peephole on Andrews' hotel room door, recorded Andrews in her hotel room, and posted the videos on the internet. 

Defendant Preferred is a corporation that provides marketing and online reservation services to Blackwell Inn. Plaintiff alleged that Preferred is liable for Blackwell's staff disclosing her hotel stay and room number; first under a theory of joint venture relationship liability, or second, because Preferred voluntarily assumed a duty of care to Plaintiff. The Court did not find Preferred liable under either theory.

First, Plaintiff argued Preferred's control over the operations and policies of Blackwell and the sharing of reservation fees established joint venture liability. However, the court found that Preferred and Blackwell were separate entities contracting for a particular service that yielded individual profits, and that none of the elements of joint venture liability were satisfied. 

Second, Plaintiff argued that Preferred voluntarily undertook to protect her privacy by requiring that Blackwell comply with its "Standards of Excellence." While the "Standards of Excellence" included two standards involving guest privacy, voluntary undertakings are to be strictly construed, and the standards did not prohibit disclosure of a guest's identity and room number, or placing a guest next to another upon request. The court found that there is no evidence to conclude that Preferred voluntarily undertook a duty to protect Plaintiff's privacy.