The Immoral Conduct of the Next Group

September 30, 2026

\n
\"Morality is the absence of hypocrisy.\"\n
\n

A thief complains when the goods he stole are taken from him, before he can sell them.\nSaba, who locks owners out of\ntheir own elevators, would call the police if an owner locked him out of his office, which stands on\nthe owners' common property.

This page analyzes the behavior of Next under this theory of morality. The test for every item is\nthe same: what Next did to me or does to owners, would Next accept in turn? Whether Next would say\nso does not matter; their actions answer.

Whether any of this conduct is a crime is examined elsewhere; here the measure is not\nthe law but Next's own conduct, read against itself.

1. Obstruction of residential access

Since July 1, 2026, the elevators of a nineteen-storey building stop at residential floors only for\nholders of a chip that Next issues and revokes on its own terms, in order to\ncollect a\nself-declared debt.

It has obstructed access to my home since then, and, by their reports, has\ndone so to a person with a child past midnight and to an owner who cannot use the\nstairs¹. The elevators are the owners' common property; Next does not own\nthem and was never chosen to run them.

Reversed: Would Levan Otarishvili not complain, if I were not\nbeing sarcastic and enforced this \"debt\" by\ninstalling an access-control system in his residence and withholding access from him?

2. Selling the elevator for a waiver of all claims

The chip comes against a signature on an\nact whose last clause has the owner declare he has \"no claims\" against\nNext Hospitality. Mine begin with grievances,\nreported February 2026, unanswered to this day. I asked for the\nclause to be removed; declined.

Reversed: Would Next accept signing a document stating it does not hold any claims\n(including debts) against an owner in order to receive one arrear of payment?

3. Collecting a debt it set itself, by its own hand

Next fixed the fee, the start date and the balance alone, with no contract, no account of the\nexpenses and no decision of the owners (details), and enforces\nthe result with the elevator (Clause 5.2, applied to a\nman who never signed it). The law gives a creditor the courts and the\nregistry; Next gave itself the lift.

Reversed: If I, whose front wall Next ordered destroyed, or the owner who reported his\ncar damaged, enforced a payment of an arbitrary figure as\nrestitution by changing the lock of Next's main office until payment, we would be in jail the same\nweek.

4. Trying to extract contracts by willfully misinterpreting the law

Five times, in writing, a manager and a lawyer told\na foreigner that signing two contracts was compliance with the existing regulations. The contracts\nwould have given Next 40% of the rental income of my\napartments and the exclusive right to use them, forever. The\nregulation was never named, because it binds Next, not me. Next's\nown specialist had said what the signature was for: \"there has to be a\nbasis\" for the bill.

Reversed: Next does not release its unlawful claim to our common property despite me naming a\nvalid regulation for them.

5. Backdating the contracts

Both drafts were dated to days on which they could not have existed:\none to the day my titles were registered, fourteen months before it was written, citing a passport\nissued the following month; the other to the first month Next wished to bill. Their signatures were\ndemanded under coercion.

Reversed: Next demands written notices from owners a week or a month in\nadvance. An owner who handed in a notice dated a month before\nhe wrote it would be told the date is false and the notice void.

6. Holding the meters and the renovation for payment and a signature

In February 2025, meters already installed in my apartment were unusable \"until you settle the\noutstanding amount\" (message), and the freight elevator for my\nmaterials came with a choice: pay now, or wait eight months. The\ninclusion in writing of the concessions offered in chat was refused: \"if it suits you, sign it\"\n(message). It cost GEL\n8,105.98 and a\nsignature.

Reversed: Next would not accept an owner withholding access to the freight elevator or the\nutility meters of an apartment Next is renovating itself. They would call the police.

7. Writing consent that was never given

Next's documents certify, in advance, what would otherwise have to be proved: that the text is\nclear, that the signature is free, that the owner consents to whatever assignment Next chooses, and\nthat \"all the owners\" have agreed (the clauses). The last is\nfalse of at least one owner, and Next knows which one.

Reversed: Would Next accept a clause in a document I wrote stating that its consent \"is deemed\nas issued\" by my signature? Would it accept that a paper I signed alone speaks for \"all the\ncompanies of the Next Group\"?

8. Altering property it does not own, for profit

The access-control system is a physical alteration of the owners' elevators, decided by Next alone\nand announced as a collection device. The drafts sent to me\nwould give Next the right to rent out, advertise on and otherwise use the common property \"for gaining\nadditional incomes\" without any owner's consent (the clauses),\nand to set the building's rules \"unilaterally\"\n(Clause 1.6). None of that income is\ncredited to the owners whose property it is.

Reversed: Would Next accept an owner letting the lobby to a shop for his own account, or\nfitting a lock of his choosing to the front door, on the ground that the building's rules, which he\nwrote himself, allow it?

9. Proposing a fictitious contract

Next's specialist advised my wife that I could \"sign the\nmanagement contract fictitiously\" and then sign a suspension of it, so that the paper would exist\nfor the Revenue Service and not for us (details).

Reversed: Next holds owners to the letter of what they sign. Would it accept \"it was\nfictitious\" from an owner who refused to pay a debt from a contract he had signed?

10. Lying about what it was doing

According to Levan Otarishvili, the director, the lockout was \"implemented for security\npurposes\". The chips were \"free of charge\" while conditioned on the waiver and the\npayments. \"We are not forcing you\" preceded \"must be [...] signed by you\" in a\nmessage from Saba, the manager. A contract with\nthe previous owner is claimed to exist and bind me, but to be\nconfidential.

Reversed: Would Next accept it, if owners changed the lock of its office, stating it was\n\"implemented for security purposes\", written in a contract that Next \"must sign\", based on a contract someone else may\nhave signed, and whose production is declined?

11. Demanding compensation while owing it

Next has demanded payment for its services since January 2026, retroactively to August 2025. In\nFebruary 2026 I set out, in writing, what those services had cost me, offered to\ncompensate Next once the account was settled both ways, and received a written undertaking to\nrespond. No response came. The lawyer's undertaking to\nreview my request and the manager's\narrangement went the same way. I had told them this\nwas hypocrisy on January 27, 2026; the contracts arrived the\nnext day.

Reversed: Next treats an owner's unpaid arrear as a debt from almost six months before the debt\nwas proposed in contract, and reserves itself the right to charge a penalty of 0.1% a day. Would it\naccept from me the treatment it gives its own undertakings, which is none?

12. Invoking rules against owners while ignoring the main one that governs the building

Next asks owners to obey \"regulations\", \"the rules applicable within the building\" and the \"common decision of the\napartment owners\", none of which it has produced to me. The main law that does govern the building, the\nLaw on Homeowners' Associations, it has never mentioned to me, because under it the owners\nmanage, account, decide and hire, and Next does none of those things.

Reversed: If the owners hired a technician to remove the contraption from their elevators,\nciting the main statute that governs the building and ignoring \"the rules applicable within the building\"\ncited by the director, whose authority no one has identified, Next would not\nanswer with its rules. It would answer with the police.

13. One rule for owners, another for Next

The owner pays 0.1% a day for a late fee and loses the elevator; Next owes GEL 10 a day for its\nbreaches, and the owner cannot withhold payments and cannot terminate (the\nclauses). An owner's notice of termination costs US$3,000, and may be\nrefused; Next terminates on thirty days, free of charge, without consulting the owner. The owner\nmust notify Next in writing a week or a month ahead; Next notified the owners of a new fee by a chat\npost and of a power cut ten minutes after it began (reports). Next refuses\ndocuments on grounds of confidentiality and\ndemands the owner's passport, email and telephone by\nWhatsApp.

An owner that signed such a contract out of his free will is one thing. Next, however,\ncoerces owners to sign, and applies some of the provisions to owners\nthat have not signed.

Reversed: Would Next sign a contract in which it pays US$3,000 for giving notice, the owner\nterminates on thirty days, and the owner fixes the fee within ±50% at will? What would it do if an\nowner coerced it to sign, or applied it without Next's signature?

What this adds up to

Thirteen kinds of conduct, one pattern: each is something Next would refuse, if it were done to\nNext. That is what hypocrisy means, and by the definition above it is what immorality means.

The crimes page asks which of these a forum of the state punishes. This page is about\nwhat the conscience, the inner forum, punishes. Unfortunately, though, it\nseems that, for Next, the trials in that forum are indefinitely adjourned.

¹\n

I am seeking consent to publish that owner's statement.