Guests ejected mid-stay from bankrupt hotel chain Sonder

Why guests were evicted mid‑stay

• Several commenters argue the “hotel” guests booked with effectively no longer existed once Sonder went bankrupt; guests became unsecured creditors, not customers.
• Under bankruptcy, operators may instantly lose staff, suppliers, security, insurance, and legal ability to operate, so allowing people to stay could be impossible or legally risky.
• Comparisons are made to airlines and gyms that shut down overnight, stranding customers mid‑journey or locking their belongings inside.

Legal protections and proposed safeguards

• Some expect laws should protect guests from being made abruptly homeless, beyond just refunds. Others note you can’t extract much from an insolvent company.
• Suggested mechanisms: mandatory bonds or insurance funds sufficient to cover active stays, with strict regulation; personal liability or even prison for executives who knowingly keep taking bookings before an impending bankruptcy.
• Others push back that extreme criminalization would undermine the rationale for limited liability companies, though some see that as a feature, not a bug.
• Debate over whether personal financial liability or prison would be more effective in curbing abuse.

Bankruptcy mechanics and consumer recourse

• Commenters outline U.S.-style creditor priority: secured creditors, admin expenses, employees, then customers and suppliers, lastly shareholders.
• Many guests likely hadn’t been fully charged yet, so might only owe for nights already stayed; those who prepaid become unsecured creditors. Credit card chargebacks and travel insurance are highlighted as partial remedies, though they don’t solve sudden displacement or higher last‑minute costs.

Sonder’s rise, fall, and the Marriott partnership

• Timeline discussed: unicorn valuation, SPAC listing, and then a steep, almost geometric share-price decline. The Marriott integration is viewed as a late “hail mary” that didn’t reverse worsening cash burn.
• Some wonder how participation in Marriott’s system could reduce revenue; suspicion that underlying problems predated the deal.
• Marriott’s branding takes a reputational hit: Sonder properties were still marketed under its umbrella, blurring who is actually responsible. This feeds a broader sense that big chains’ logos no longer reliably signal quality or accountability.

Guest experiences and staff‑light model

• Mixed but often negative anecdotes: higher prices than full‑service hotels, missing basics (working toilets, maintenance, on‑site help), and remote/video‑only reception seen as a “dysfunctional future.”
• Some liked specific locations and “predictable Airbnb” feel but note that price and service advantages had largely disappeared.