Guests report getting billed hundreds of dollars for smoking, based on the readings of an “algorithmic” smoke detector. The sensor manufacturer markets its product as a way for hotels to unlock new revenue streams.
Guests report getting billed hundreds of dollars for smoking, based on the readings of an “algorithmic” smoke detector. The sensor manufacturer markets its product as a way for hotels to unlock new revenue streams.
A lawyer will send a demand letter, not an affidavit.
An affidavit is for sworn testimony given under oath by someone who is unwilling or unable to appear on the witness stand.
A demand letter is a formal written request for action or payment prior with a threat of legal action for noncompliance.
If they ignore the demand letter then the next step is a civil suit. Depending on the amount this might end up in small claims. Also, tort cases only require a preponderance of evidence.
A preponderance of evidence essentially means you only have to prove something is more likely than not which, in this case, would be pretty easy. The big issue is the expense of this process almost makes it not worth it.
The American legal system favors those with resources.
That’s what I’m saying though - it will come down to sworn testimony, and their data from the sensor will likely constitute a preponderance of evidence.
The burden is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. Whomever brings the suit needs to prove that it’s more likely than not that they’re were incorrectly fined.
Since these devices seem to basically be VOC sensors it wouldn’t be that hard to do this.
To a non-technically literate judge/jury. Many people just trust “the data” or “the authority” or “the technology”.
I understand that, but bringing one of these sensors into the courtroom and turning on a Dyson air wrap, spraying hairspray, using baby powder etc. and then comparing the results would show the susceptibility of these to be wrong.
It’s a demonstrably flawed system so you just need to demonstrate the system in action.