Have you ever gone to check out of your hotel room, maybe after a nice relaxing vacation, only to discover that there are “resort fees” that you owe? Resort fees can include things like use of the pool, wi-fi, housekeeping, or “complimentary” breakfast. But they usually aren’t advertised up front, so these fees come as an unpleasant surprise to the guests when they try to check out. But, if Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez gets her way, Congress will do something to protect consumers from these tricky hidden fees.

Ramirez wrote a letter to 10 members of Congress, asking for them to draft legislation to prevent hotels from charging these expensive, and hidden fees. She specifically targeted representatives who had previously spoken out against the fees. Last year Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called on the FTC to investigate online hotel booking sites and the hidden fees they may have that “push the price of the hotel room beyond what the actual hotel would charge.” Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) and Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania)  have also encouraged the FTC to look into these fees. Right now, the FTC looks into each allegation individually, on a case-by-case basis, and has warned different hotels that their hidden fees may “violate the law” in the past.

A study by a non-profit consumer advocacy group called Travelers United recently found that these kinds of fees have been increasing in California, with “nearly 200 hotels in California charging an average mandatory resort fee of $17 per night.”  However, a hotel trade group, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, has stated that the number of hotels that charge these fees is on a decline overall. Rosanna Maietta, a spokeswoman for the group, stated:

The lodging industry provides guests full disclosure for resort fees charged upfront. Those fees, in addition to the base travel and hotel charges, remain transparent whether consumers book online or with the hotel directly.

However, that hasn’t stopped people from getting surprised with resort fees, and many Americans believe that fees should be disclosed before guests book anything. A poll commissioned by Travelers United found that 80 percent of respondents want resort fees included in advertised pricing, and 87 percent would be less likely to stay at a hotel if they were charged fees for amenities they did not use or want.

Whether Congress will actually take action will be interesting to watch–given that a few congresspeople have already been talking about the issue it certainly bodes well, but only time will tell.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FTC Chairwoman Goes After Pesky “Resort Fees” at Hotels appeared first on Law Street.

A new report authored by Law School Transparency, a Georgia-based non-profit, is shedding light on the current failures of law schools, and U.S. senators are taking notice. In a unique show of bipartisanship, senators from both parties criticized American law schools last week for leaving law school graduates with significant debt but few job prospects.

The report attempted to determine if law schools are admitting students who are not prepared for bar passage or legal jobs. Law School Transparency explained the motivation for its study, stating:

We started with a basic observation. As long as the bar exam guards entrance to the legal profession, law schools should be held accountable for enrolling students who face significant risk of not passing that exam. Failing to earn a license does not eliminate all of the value law schools provide, but that failure significantly decreases the value of a law degree for a typical graduate. Fewer students would undertake three years of law school and significant debt without the prospect of practicing law.

The study came to the conclusion that there were 74 schools that in 2014 admitted at least 25 percent “at-risk” students, and 37 of those schools admitted at least 50 percent at-risk students. Given that there are only 206 ABA accredited law schools, 74 is a pretty hefty number. As defined by Law School Transparency, at-risk students are those who risk failing the bar upon graduation. Law School Transparency also came to the conclusion that for-profit law schools admit huge numbers of at-risk students, particularly the law schools operated by InfiLaw, a company that has consistently been accused of being predatory.

In reaction to this report, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote about the need to change the law school system. He stated: “We need to move away from a system that results in too many law school graduates twisting in the wind.” Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) spoke against for-profit law schools specifically, saying: “Now that we’ve taken the cap off what you can borrow for graduate courses, they have decided they are going to just charge to the heavens in terms of tuition for worthless, worthless law school degree.”

The backlash against law schools, particularly for-profit law schools, has been in the works for a while, but the attention from senators is a big new aspect. Maybe with this increased attention as a result of Law School Transparency’s report, we’ll finally see some changes.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Need for Law School Reform: Senators Join the Conversation appeared first on Law Street.

In today’s toxic political environment, it often truly seems like there are no issues that can spark action on both sides of the aisle. However, both Republicans and Democrats proved that wrong this week, as an effort for comprehensive prison reform moved forward and was introduced in the Senate.

The bipartisan bill is called the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act and will roll back many of the policies established in the tough-on-crime legislation of the late 20th century. While those measures were put in place in an attempt to combat rising crime rates, the policies have led to inconsistent and inappropriate punishments in many cases. These policies have also led to problems such as prison overcrowding.

The bill will end solitary confinement for juveniles, a problem that has gotten particularly focused attention in recent years. If it passes, the bill will also lessen mandatory minimum sentences. Under current federal law, the “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law lands many who have been convicted of drug offenses to life in prison without parole. This reform would reduce that mandatory sentencing to 25 years.

Overall, the reform will also make other policies more flexible, including the ability of judges to forgo mandatory minimum requirements in some cases, and exceptions for first-time offenders without serious criminal histories. Overall, the bill encompasses a number of changes to policies that are seen as too rigid and punitive.

What’s perhaps most impressive about the bill, however, is its bipartisan nature in a time when bipartisan efforts have become increasingly rare. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act includes heavyweight senators on both sides of the aisle, most notably Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), said by some to be a rising Democratic star also was heavily involved, as well as Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah). Other senators involved in the legislation are Jon Cornyn (R-Texas), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Pat Leahy (D-Vermont). The bill also has some powerful organizations on both sides of the aisle supporting it as well, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Koch brothers. As the political field gets increasingly divisive in the run up to the 2016 election, this is an impressive show of collaboration.

The new legislation is far from perfect, of course, as it will only apply to federal prisons, and doesn’t eliminate many problematic aspects of our justice system. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction–now we’ll have to see whether or not it continues to progress in the Senate.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Work Together on Bipartisan Sentencing Reform appeared first on Law Street.