Marriott Unites Hilton and Accor to Get Slammed for “No Refund” Scams as Travellers in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, UK, Greece and Portugal Expose Shocking Booking Tricks Across Europe: A Complete New Guide

In 2024–2025, major hotel chains like Marriott, Hilton, and Accor have expanded non-refundable booking policies across Europe. These “no refund” rates, once rare, are now default options on hotel websites, often promoted without clear warnings. Customers report misleading practices—such as policy changes after booking, unclear disclosures, and bait-and-switch rate terms. Many discovered cancellations weren’t possible only after purchase. Complaints surged about bookings canceled by hotels (due to overbooking or sales), with no compensation offered. In one case, Hilton guests had prepaid stays wiped out during a brand transition, leaving families stranded. Consumers also accuse hotels of falsifying “no-show” records to deny refunds or points. Regulatory bodies in the UK and EU have begun investigating these tactics for unfair terms and deceptive omissions. A new California law even forces a 24-hour grace period on such bookings. As backlash mounts, chains face pressure to offer clearer policies, ethical handling of refunds, and genuine transparency. Without reform, trust in these global hotel brands is eroding fast.

1. Re‑Emergence of Strict “No Refund” Policies Post‑Pandemic

In the wake of pandemic-era flexibility, 2024 has seen many hotel groups reimpose and even expand strict non-refundable booking options. With travel demand rebounding and major events on the horizon, hotels have grown bolder in requiring advance payment with no cancellation. For example, one traveler discovered that a Paris hotel had quietly made all reservations for May 2024 fully non-cancellable, even two months before the Summer Olympics[1]. This guest – a loyal elite member – only obtained a refund as a one-time exception, and warned others that “new/different restrictions – including no cancellable rates” were becoming more common for spring 2024 travel[2]. Across Europe, big brands like Marriott, Hilton, and Accor are heavily promoting “Advance Purchase” rates, which offer a small discount in exchange for zero flexibility. These non-refundable deals, once reserved for special promos, have increasingly become standard fare on hotel websites and apps.

Hotels justify tighter policies as a way to lock in revenue and manage high occupancy periods. Industry analysis notes that the generous same-day cancellation practice of years past has largely vanished – even before 2020, many chains had shifted to 24–72 hour cancellation windows, and now outright “no refund” rates are widely pushed[3][4]. The post-pandemic travel boom (e.g. record occupancy in 2023–24) has emboldened hotels to modify reservation policies to be more restrictive, under the logic that they need earlier commitment from guests to avoid last-minute losses[5][6]. Marriott International explicitly noted during a prior policy change that “demand for lodging is at an all-time high… now is a good time to modify our reservation cancellation policy to help hotels better manage their inventory”[5][6]. In practice, this has translated to more “prepaid/non-refundable” options on offer.

However, what concerns travelers and regulators is how these policies are implemented – and whether consumers are being clearly informed or potentially misled when they book a no-refund rate.

2. Misleading Practices and Hidden Restrictions

A major issue reported in 2024–2025 is that some hotels have obscured or even altered cancellation terms in ways that deceive consumers. There are cases of hotels effectively bait-and-switching the refund policy after booking. In one example, a Marriott guest in London booked a “Long Term Stay” rate that was advertised as prepaid but cancellable up to 1 day before arrival – only to find later that the hotel unilaterally changed the terms to “non-refundable if canceled more than 1 day after booking,” eliminating the grace period[7][8]. The customer was shocked to see the cancellation policy become far stricter after the reservation was confirmed, calling it “super shady business practice”[9][10]. Marriott’s central support deflected responsibility to the property in that case, and the hotel eventually admitted error, but such incidents highlight how fine print can shift. Even when not this extreme, important details (like cutoff dates or penalties) are often tucked behind small “Rate Details” links during online booking. Consumers who fail to expand those details may assume a booking is flexible when it is not. In fact, customer complaints to consumer agencies show many travelers “didn’t see” the no-refund condition at time of purchase and only learned of it when trying to cancel[11][12].

Another practice drawing ire is the default presentation of non-refundable rates as the cheapest or most prominent option. Major chains’ booking engines and apps frequently pre-select the lower-priced non-refundable rate, relying on the customer to actively choose a more expensive refundable rate if desired. If the interface isn’t clear, a traveler can unknowingly book the non-refundable deal. According to EU consumer advocates, unclear or misleading disclosures about cancellation terms could violate unfair-trading laws, even though EU law doesn’t directly dictate hotel cancellation rules[13]. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) similarly cautions that misleading omissions (like hiding a no-refund condition until after purchase) breach consumer protection rules[14][15]. New UK legislation in 2025 has specifically banned certain “drip pricing” tactics – requiring all mandatory charges to be shown up front[16] – and while this mainly targets hidden fees, it signals regulators’ broader intolerance for concealing material terms. In short, if a hotel advertises a room at a given rate but buries the fact that “no refunds or changes are allowed,” it risks legal scrutiny. Indeed, class-action lawsuits have targeted hotels for exactly this kind of deception: a notable suit against Hilton alleges the chain “promises consumers a lower room rate during booking, but then increases the rate at check-out,” never clearly disclosing the true total or refund restrictions in advance[17][18]. In that case, the plaintiff was charged far more than the quoted price and “was not offered a refund,” exemplifying a bait-and-switch pricing scheme[18][19]. While that 2019 lawsuit focused on hidden fees, the core issue – failing to adequately inform consumers of what they’ll ultimately pay or lose – is equally relevant to non-refund conditions.

3. Consumer Backlash: Complaints, Lawsuits & Investigations

Unsurprisingly, travelers have been pushing back against these policies, filing complaints and even lawsuits across 2024–2025. Consumer review sites are replete with horror stories: customers denied refunds even in extenuating circumstances, or having prepaid bookings mysteriously canceled by the hotel with no compensation. On Marriott’s own Trustpilot page (where its rating hovers around 1.3/5), numerous reviewers recount having reservations canceled or changed by the hotel and then struggling to get their money back[20][21]. For instance, one customer said Marriott emailed to cancel her prepaid reservation just 6 days before check-in – leaving her scrambling, since flights were already booked[22]. Others describe being wrongly charged or double-billed and then stonewalled on refunds, or being promised refunds by hotel staff that never materialize[23][24]. A particularly “inhuman” example involved wildfires: when an approaching wildfire threatened a vacation rental booked via Marriott’s platform, the company refused to refund the non-refundable booking until the area was officially in the fire zone, effectively telling the guest to either risk personal safety or lose their payment[25][26]. Such accounts fuel perceptions that big hotel chains put profit over ethics, even during emergencies. (It is worth noting that travel providers faced similar legal heat for COVID-19 non-refunds; many EU regulators in 2020 insisted that consumers must be refunded for cancellations beyond their control[27][28]. Hotels eventually complied in most cases by offering vouchers or refunds for pandemic-related disruptions, sometimes under government orders.)

In terms of legal actions, class-action and group lawsuits have emerged. Aside from pricing deception cases like the Hilton suit above, there have been collusion allegations (e.g. a 2023 lawsuit accusing Marriott, Hilton, and others of using shared rate data to fix prices)[29], and smaller-scale suits over refusal to refund during crises. In one highly publicized saga in 2025, Hilton Worldwide faced mass outrage for canceling hundreds of already-paid reservations at its all-inclusive resorts after those properties were sold to Hyatt. When Hyatt took over management of four former Hilton resorts in the Caribbean and Mexico in June 2025, Hilton Honors members who had booked using reward points saw their reservations abruptly “disappear without notice”[30][31]. Families arrived only to learn their booking was void, with no prior communication and no place to stay[31][32]. One guest reported, “I opened my app and I no longer had a reservation… Still no actual communication from anyone.”[33]. Even more egregiously, some had received an email explicitly assuring them that their reservations would not be affected – only to find them canceled days later[32]. Travelers lost thousands on flights, weddings, and honeymoons as a result. Consumer forums lit up with fury: “Hilton knew this was coming… they kept taking bookings anyway. They canceled a woman’s WEDDING. This is the epitome of pathetic,” one commenter raged, calling for a class-action lawsuit[34][35]. Others noted that Hilton appeared to deliberately delay notifying customers (or never notified at all) to avoid having to rebook them at alternative hotels on Hilton’s dime[35][30]. The scandal prompted Hilton to eventually offer compensation – reports say Hilton belatedly offered points or alternate stays after media coverage[36][37] – and Hyatt issued apologies for the “frustration caused.” Nevertheless, the incident has drawn interest from regulators and may spur legal claims over the handling of those non-refundable award bookings. It’s a cautionary tale of how manipulating or voiding bookings to dodge liabilities** can backfire spectacularly on a brand’s reputation.

European consumer protection bodies have also been keeping an eye on hotel refund practices. While EU law leaves day-to-day cancellation policies to the contract terms[13], general unfair contract terms law requires that non-refundable clauses not create a gross imbalance against consumers. Several countries’ consumer agencies (e.g. in France and Spain) have warned hotels against refusing refunds when services cannot be provided (such as COVID lockdowns or disaster closures)[27][28]. In the UK, the CMA has shown it will intervene if hotels mislead customers or withhold refunds in scenarios deemed unfair – during the pandemic it pressured hotel booking sites and chains to refund customers for lockdown-canceled stays[27][28]. And new laws are emerging: notably, California (while not Europe, it influences global chains) enacted a 2024 law requiring hotels to offer a 24-hour free cancellation window for any booking made at least 3 days in advance, even for “non-refundable” reservations[38][39]. This essentially forces a grace period so consumers can change their mind shortly after booking. Each violation can incur hefty fines[40]. Such legislation reflects growing sentiment that hotels shouldn’t lock away a customer’s money the instant they click “Book” – at least not without a brief chance to correct mistakes. If similar rules catch on in other jurisdictions, major hotel brands will need to adjust their non-refundable offerings globally.

4. Real-World Cases of Refused Refunds (2024–2025)

Beyond broad trends, it’s useful to look at a few concrete examples from 2024–25 in Europe and beyond where customers were denied refunds under dubious circumstances:

• Hotel Overbooking and “Technical” Cancellations: There have been cases where hotels cancel a guest’s reservation (often to resell the room at a higher last-minute rate) and then claim the booking is non-refundable since it wasn’t the guest who canceled. For instance, a 2024 complaint involved a Montenegro Marriott resort emailing a guest about a 5-night booking cancellation just weeks before arrival, offering no refund but only an alternative date at higher cost (details shared on social media). The hotel cited “technical issues” for the cancellation – a reasoning guests found questionable[22][41]. In essence, the guest did nothing wrong, yet was left to fight for a refund of the prepaid amount. Such scenarios blur the line between no-refund policy and no-service fraud. Guests often have to escalate to corporate or dispute charges via their credit card to get money back in these cases. (As one seasoned traveler on a forum noted: the only leverage when a hotel refuses refund for a booking it canceled is to initiate a chargeback, which hotels generally want to avoid[42].)
• Non-Refundable Booking During Renovations/Closures: A Reddit user in 2024 shared that they booked an Accor hotel resort stay, only to arrive and find the pool and facilities were closed for renovation – something not disclosed upfront. The rate was non-refundable, and the hotel initially refused to cancel without penalty despite failing to provide the expected amenities[43]. Only after significant pressure did management relent. This example shows how some hotels try to stick to “no refund” even when the product quality is substantially lower than advertised (arguably a misrepresentation). Consumer law would likely be on the guest’s side for a full refund if key facilities are unusable and not communicated, but hotels sometimes gamble that guests won’t pursue legal remedies for a one-time stay.
• Illness or Family Emergency: Many customer stories involve unexpected illness or family deaths forcing a trip cancellation – and hotels refusing any refund or credit on a “non-refundable” booking. While some hotel managers quietly show compassion (especially for direct bookings), the official policy of chains is usually inflexible. There were reports in 2025 of guests being charged no-show fees or full stay charges even after informing the hotel of a medical emergency. Some frustrated customers have turned to social media or consumer advocates to shame hotels into doing the right thing. In a few cases, public posts have prompted corporate offices to issue goodwill refunds, but without publicity the default stance remains: “non-refundable means no exceptions.” Travelers are often pointed to travel insurance in these scenarios. Notably, UK consumer groups have argued that blanket no-refund terms might be deemed unfair if they don’t account for extreme circumstances; however, no landmark case has yet forced a major hotel chain to systematically allow exceptions.
• “No-Show” Designation Abuse: Another underhanded practice occasionally alleged is hotels marking a guest as a “no-show” falsely so as to deny a refund or loyalty points. For example, if a guest leaves early and requests a partial refund for unused nights, a hotel might mark them a no-show (as if they never arrived) to justify keeping the full payment under the no-show policy. One Trustpilot reviewer described being assured by hotel staff that an unused night would be refunded (on a points booking), only to later see the hotel coded it as a no-show and kept the points, contrary to what was promised[44][45]. Such maneuvering not only violates trust but can amount to fraudulent record-keeping. Similarly, some OTA customers have found hotels claiming “invalid credit card” and canceling prepaid bookings just so they could avoid honoring a cheap rate – essentially falsifying the booking status. These anecdotes illustrate why travelers are increasingly cynical.

In short, the past two years are rife with real-world instances of guests feeling cheated out of refunds. Whether it’s a good-faith change of plans, an unforeseeable catastrophe, or a hotel-initiated problem, the corporate stance has generally been to enforce no-refund rules to the letter. Only through persistent complaints – or legal/PR pressure – do many customers succeed in obtaining refunds or credits.

5. How Refund Policies Are Communicated (or Concealed)

Major hotel chains insist that their refund and cancellation terms are disclosed at booking, but the clarity of that information is questionable. Typically, when booking on a chain’s official website or app, the rate name will include a hint (e.g. “Flexible Rate – free cancellation until X date” vs “Advance Purchase – Non-Refundable”). Additional details are available via a tooltip or a “Rate Details” pop-up[7]. However, user experience can vary: on some mobile interfaces, the critical words “non-refundable” might be cut off or require scrolling to see. In multiple customer complaints, people admit they only learned their rate was non-refundable after they completed checkout, implying the on-screen cues failed to grab their attention[11][12]. Some chains send confirmation emails that do clearly state the cancellation policy – but by then, of course, it’s too late to change it without penalty.

Hotels also often advertise “Free Cancellation” in big letters when it’s available, which conversely means if you don’t see that perk, the rate is likely not cancelable. But not all consumers realize this absence; they might assume any booking can be canceled for at least a voucher. Third-party booking platforms (OTAs like Booking.com or Expedia) can add to confusion: they sometimes label rooms as “Non-refundable” or “No cancellations” in bright tags, but if the OTA fails to sync a last-minute policy change from the hotel, a guest could be misled. (There have been disputes where a guest booked via an OTA believing they had free cancellation until a certain date – as shown on the OTA – but the hotel’s policy was actually stricter. The guest ends up caught in the middle of finger-pointing between the OTA and hotel.)

Another way refund information is obscured is via lengthy terms and conditions. Accor’s standard terms, for example, state that “no refund will be granted for a reservation with pre-payment”[46], but few people read the full T&Cs. The key is whether the booking process itself makes the no-refund condition unambiguously clear at decision time. Regulators emphasize that material facts should be presented prominently, not hidden. The UK’s new consumer law explicitly bans burying mandatory fees until checkout; by analogy, hiding a non-refundable condition until after purchase could be seen as a “misleading omission.” If challenged, a hotel would need to prove the customer was adequately informed beforehand. Given the volume of complaints like “I had no idea it was non-refundable when I clicked buy,” it appears many booking interfaces are failing this test.

From the hotels’ perspective, loyalty program members are often given slightly more leniency or at least better explanations. Marriott’s and Hilton’s help pages advise customers to double-check the cancellation policy shown at booking and in the app itinerary[47][48]. They also note that prepaid bookings are usually cheaper, hinting at the trade-off. Hilton’s site, for instance, makes you actively check a box acknowledging “I understand this booking cannot be changed or refunded” for certain non-refundable offers. Despite these measures, a significant number of travelers still feel the refund-related information is far from transparent. The problem is exacerbated when dealing across languages and regions – a policy written in complex legal wording or not translated well can easily be misunderstood by international guests in Europe.

6. Media and Watchdog Accusations

Travel media and consumer watchdog groups in Europe have ramped up coverage of these issues in 2024/25. Prestigious outlets like Which? (UK) and UFC-Que Choisir (France) have published advisories on hotel cancellation fees, reminding consumers of their rights. The consensus is that while non-refundable rates are lawful when clearly agreed, any deceptive trick to enforce them is unacceptable. For example, if a hotel manipulates booking records to avoid a refund (such as falsely claiming a guest canceled too late or was a no-show), that could be fraud. There have been investigative reports into hotels overbooking and then profiting off double payments. One European watchdog piece described how some hotels re-sell rooms that were already paid for by no-show guests, essentially “double-dipping” revenue. If the no-show was genuine, that’s the guest’s loss, but in shady cases hotels have been accused of engineering no-show situations (e.g. quietly canceling a reservation and later claiming the guest never arrived) – a practice that, if proven, would likely draw regulatory penalties. Thus far, these remain allegations and anecdotal, but the fact they are being discussed in consumer forums shows the level of distrust brewing.

Media coverage has also highlighted the human toll of hardline refund policies. Stories of families sleeping in cars because their hotel wouldn’t check them in a few hours late (and then refused to refund the prepaid night) have circulated widely[49]. Another viral story involved a Marriott in the U.S. refusing check-in to a family with a toddler due to a technicality, effectively canceling their stay on the spot with no refund, forcing them to find shelter elsewhere[49]. While that particular scenario was more about a check-in rule, it underscores how inflexible policies can lead to absurdly poor outcomes – and negative press. In Europe, travel columns in newspapers have taken hotels to task for lack of compassion. The Guardian (UK), for instance, in mid-2023 urged travel firms and hotels to refund holidaymakers who preemptively canceled trips to wildfire-hit regions[50]. Some big tour operators did waive fees, but many independent hotels did not, drawing public criticism for prioritizing income over safety[51][52].

Watchdog agencies have started investigations too. As of 2025, the CMA’s new powers mean it can directly fine companies up to 10% of turnover for egregious consumer law breaches[53][54]. Drip pricing and fake reviews are explicit targets[15][16], and while not directly about refunds, it sets a precedent that hiding material info (like a non-refundable condition or an impending resort closure) could bring sanctions. The European Commission, through its CPC network (Consumer Protection Cooperation), has also coordinated inquiries in the travel sector – earlier focusing on airline refunds, but hotel practices are likely next on the radar given rising complaints. We may soon see European-wide guidelines on how hotels must present cancellation options (similar to how airlines must display total price with all fees from the first quote).

7. Conclusion: A Balancing Act Between Flexibility and Transparency

Major hotel chains in Europe and globally are clearly steering customers toward non-refundable bookings in 2024–2025, as a revenue-secure strategy in boom times. But this push has come with increased scrutiny over fairness and transparency. Deceptive practices – whether intentional or accidental – have been exposed by consumer experiences and media reports: from hotels changing cancellation terms after the fact[7][8], to denying refunds come hell or high water (literally, in the case of wildfires)[25][26]. Consumer advocates argue that if hotels want to enforce strict no-refund policies, they must communicate them in unmistakable terms and honor them ethically (meaning the hotel shouldn’t profit from situations where it fails to deliver the promised service).

We’ve seen customers fight back through chargebacks, public reviews, and legal actions when they feel misled. Legislators are slowly stepping in – the California law providing a 24-hour refund window is one example of a pro-consumer response[38][39]. In Europe, while no equivalent law exists yet, the general direction is that misleading omissions and unfair terms won’t be tolerated under consumer protection rules. If the hospitality industry doesn’t self-correct (by making booking terms crystal-clear and exercising goodwill in edge cases), it may find itself the target of regulatory enforcement next.

For travelers in 2025, the takeaway is to exercise extreme caution when booking: always double-check if your rate is refundable and until what date. If a deal seems too good, it’s probably the non-refundable one. And if you do end up in a dispute over a refund, know that you’re not alone – thousands of others have faced similar battles, and consumer law might be on your side depending on the circumstances. The hospitality giants, from Marriott and Hilton to Accor and IHG, must balance their desire to eliminate cancellations with the need to maintain customer trust. As the recent backlash shows, overplaying the “no refunds” card can seriously harm a hotel’s brand. Transparency and fairness are not just ethical obligations but increasingly business imperatives in the age of social media and empowered consumers.

Sources: Recent traveler reports and complaints[1][2][7][8]; consumer advocacy and legal analysis[17][18][25]; news coverage of hotel refund controversies[30][31][34]; official policies and regulatory updates[4][38].

The post Marriott Unites Hilton and Accor to Get Slammed for “No Refund” Scams as Travellers in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, UK, Greece and Portugal Expose Shocking Booking Tricks Across Europe: A Complete New Guide appeared first on Travel and Tour World