What Travel Advisors Need to Know About “Sleeper” Laws

最近，我的注意力是在马萨诸塞州一家律师事务所的一份报告中，该公司专门研究旅行法，引用了我所谓的“卧铺法”。该标签指的是在各个州的法律法规，这些法规通常很久以前被采用，并且经常被遗忘。直到他们没有。这些法律和法规不同于加利福尼亚和佛罗里达州等州的主动监管制度。

律师事务所Smith Duggan Buell＆Rufo LLP在波士顿和马萨诸塞州的林肯设有办事处。他们的报告包含在与客户的一般通信中，而不在他们的网站上。它的本质很明显。

马萨诸塞州检察长在1996年通过了一项法规，该法规对在马萨诸塞州出售或出售给马萨诸塞州居民的旅行套餐的创造者和卖方施加了巨大的昂贵义务。在实质上，如果发生包装行程或服务的更改，则必须为消费者提供三种选择，并且消费者可以自行决定选择哪种选择。

The options are: (1) cash refund for the “fair market value” of undelivered services; (2) a specific substitute service of equal or greater value; or (3) a specific substitute service of lower “fair market value” plus a cash refund of the difference. If the package creator/seller violates the rule, an aggrieved consumer may sue under the state’s consumer protection statute (Chapter 93A) for multiple damages and attorney’s fees.

Any law requiring identification of the “fair market value” of services is highly problematic and likely to lead to lengthy and costly conflicts. The good news is that the Massachusetts regulation appears on its face to apply only to what are called “tour operators” and not to travel advisors who play no role in constructing the travel program and serve only as retailers of the services packaged by others.

马萨诸塞州并不孤单。

In New York City the current Administrative Code indicates that § 20-744 dealing with “Procurement or sale of tickets, reservations or passenger accommodations,”仍然有效. That astonishing piece of old law states:

1. the purpose of the regulation is “safeguarding the public against fraud, extortion, exorbitant rates, and similar abuses.”
2. declares it unlawful to charge a “service fee” [using contemporary terminology] of more than “one dollar” for procuring a railroad, cruise line [the regulation refers to ‘steamship company’], air or bus line “ticket over the established tariff charge or charges therefor.”
3. More bizarrely, the rule adds that “intent” to charge more than a dollar is an essential element of the offense but that proof of payment in excess of one dollar is itself “presumptive evidence of the intent.”
4. the rule further outlaws the marking up of the price of any covered transportation ticket “over the established tariff charge or charges therefor.”

There are so many problems with this regulation that it would require a much longer dissertation to cover them all. Suffice to say for present purposes that it defines "established tariff charge" as “the charge set forth in the tariff as published and filed by the railroad, parlor or sleeping car owner or operator, steamship company, airline or bus line involved.” Since most transportation services today do not file and are not required to file tariffs, it is possible that the entire regulation is invalid, especially since the regulation purports to make violations into misdemeanor crimes punishable by “a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding ten days or both, for each separate offense.”

该规则走得更远，要求纽约市的每个旅行社和酒店的经理都将其条款发布在“在代理商或酒店的场所”的一个明显位置，以获取顾客，客人，客人和整个公众的信息。透明而且，哦，是的，该规则不适用于“门票，预订或乘客住宿：…到美国大陆和加拿大以外的地方，不包括阿拉斯加的地方”，也不适用于“现有的书面合同与公司，公司或政府机构一起涵盖旅游或旅行服务的任何旅行社。”

Obviously, the New York City regulation is “out of its time” and there is no evidence of its enforcement after World War II. Any attempt to enforce it by the city would face many strong defenses. The regulation contains no evidence of intent to make it enforceable by private parties.

The point is that there may be other “out of time” laws in the codes of the states. ASTA, the industry’s trade association, has identified and analyzed some of the principal regulatory schemes in a series of papers available to members at ASTA.org. Others may exist.

马萨诸塞州的监管是误导疗法的经典例子。例如，正如律师事务所备忘录所描述的那样，法院案件表明没有现实的辩护，例如“force majeure，政府活动，绩效的不可能，当然还有相反的退款语言，以其他有效的条款和条件。”因此，在大流行期间取消服务的供应商将零售旅行顾问视为任何想要利用这种情况的消费者，通过起诉将他们出售给服务的政党来利用这种情况。在这方面，合同条款甚至明确的豁免显然不能覆盖消费者的权利。

马萨诸塞州法规的实际影响令人生畏，该州的顾问可能希望考虑寻求立法以重新调整所涉及的股票。旅行顾问不应对无法控制的供应商行动负责。

在其他州，顾问应咨询其当地律师，以确保没有埋葬在《州法典》中的“卧铺”法律，等待受害的消费者找到它。