If there is "outrage" that is, potentially, damage to the hotel's reputation. But this has some significant problems before such a case can succeed.
There has to be some "wrong" done by the 17 y/o. Very often there is an implied duty to tell the truth, and so lying is very often wrong. But there are exceptions. There are many reasons that person might lie and not all are "wrong".
There has to be some harm that occurs as a result of the wrong. Damage to reputation is one possible harm. But in this case, I would ask if the damage was caused by the lie, or caused by the acts of the hotel. If, for example, a shop is selling cigarettes to children, and not checking age id, then the damage to the reputation is not caused by the lie, but by the failure of the shop to check. So the question here is, was it reasonable for the 17 y/o to expect the damage to reputation. Did the hotel cause its own loss of reputation. I think it would be very hard for the hotel to establish that the harm to its reputation was caused by the lie, and not caused by its own practices. It is not sufficient for the wrong to have merely offered the opportunity for the hotel to harm itself. You can't claim for losses that you could have reasonably avoided. These are the principles of "remoteness", "causation" and "mitigation".
Finally, there has to be something that the court can put right. If there has been no loss in bookings, then the hotel would have to argue that either bookings would have been expected to be even higher, or that there was some other way of establishing what the company has lost, for example, costs that the company has endured to correct the loss of reputation. Again these costs can't be things that the hotel should have been doing anyway.
So any such case would face considerable problems and would be unlikely to succeed.