Technical corrections only. The diff includes the name of the House Clerk and Senate procedural information, such as the calendar number and the date the bill was placed on the Senate calendar. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.
Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 29, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to eliminate 'junk fees' in hotel and short-term rental advertising by mandating upfront, all-inclusive pricing displays for provider-imposed fees, thereby increasing transparency for consumers.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits hotels, short-term rentals, and third-party online sellers from advertising prices for lodging services without clearly displaying the total services price upfront, which must include all mandatory service fees. It also requires the disclosure of any government-imposed taxes or assessments prior to the final purchase. The Act grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General, and includes a preemption clause for conflicting state laws.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill protects consumers from deceptive pricing practices, allowing them to make informed purchasing decisions without hidden fees. They contend it fosters fair competition by requiring all lodging providers to advertise transparently, ensuring consumers see the true cost from the outset.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes undue regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly smaller operators, and could stifle innovation in pricing strategies. They may also contend that some fees are legitimate and should not be forced into an 'all-in' price, or that the preemption clause could override beneficial state-level consumer protections.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are easily understandable, making it accessible for a quick but informed review.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025,' which is how the legislation will be commonly known and referenced in legal and public discourse.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and concise short title helps in easy identification and communication of the bill's purpose.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short title provisions.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Unfair and Deceptive Advertising
This section makes it unlawful for hotels, short-term rentals, and online booking platforms to display, advertise, or offer prices for lodging services without clearly, conspicuously, and prominently showing the 'total services price' upfront. This total price must include the base rate and all mandatory service fees. Additionally, any tax, fee, or assessment imposed by a government entity must be disclosed prior to the final purchase.
Section 2(b)(1) and 2(b)(2)
Federal and State Enforcement Powers
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce violations of the Act as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It also empowers State Attorneys General to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents in federal court, with specific provisions for notifying and allowing intervention by the FTC in such state-led actions.
Section 2(b)(3)
Affirmative Defense for Third-Party Online Sellers
This provision establishes an affirmative defense for intermediaries or third-party online sellers. They can avoid liability if they demonstrate that they established procedures to receive accurate price information from lodging providers, relied in good faith on inaccurate information provided by a hotel or short-term rental, and took prompt action to correct the information upon receiving notice of its inaccuracy.
Section 2(c)
Federal Preemption of Conflicting State Laws
This section preempts state or local laws that prohibit or affect how covered entities advertise prices for covered services, specifically regarding fee disclosure, unless those state laws require the 'total services price' to include each service fee in accordance with the federal Act. It explicitly states that state laws related to contracts, torts, fraud, or unauthorized access to personal information are not preempted.
Section 2(d)
Key Definitions
This section provides precise definitions for crucial terms used throughout the Act, such as 'base services price,' 'covered entity,' 'covered services,' 'hotel,' 'intermediary,' 'optional product or service,' 'service fee,' 'short-term rental,' 'third-party online seller,' and 'total services price.' These definitions are critical for understanding the exact scope and application of the prohibitions and enforcement mechanisms.
The definitions of 'total services price' and 'service fee' explicitly exclude 'any taxes or fees imposed by a government or quasi-government entity' and 'any charges or fees for an optional product or service.' This means the bill does not require government-imposed taxes or truly optional charges to be included in the upfront 'total services price' display, only mandatory service fees imposed by the covered entity itself.
Section 2(d)(8) and 2(d)(12)
Why it matters:While it is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely, the implications of these exclusions for the 'all-in' price concept are significant and could be overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the main prohibition.
Case for: Proponents would argue that government taxes and truly optional services are distinct from mandatory 'junk fees' imposed by the provider, and thus should not be conflated in the initial advertised price. This allows for clearer comparison of the provider's own charges.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding government taxes and fees from the 'total services price' still allows for a degree of sticker shock, as consumers will still face additional mandatory charges at checkout that were not part of the initially advertised 'total.'
Estimated impact: This distinction means consumers will see a more transparent price from the lodging provider, but still need to factor in government taxes and fees which will be disclosed later in the booking process, though prior to final purchase. It clarifies the scope of 'all-in' pricing to provider-imposed fees.
The prohibition under subsection (a) shall take effect 450 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to advertisements, displays, marketing, and offers of covered services made on or after such date.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include effective dates at the end of a bill. However, the length of this delay is significant for implementation planning.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a 450-day (approximately 15 months) delayed effective date provides ample time for covered entities, especially smaller businesses and online platforms, to update their advertising systems, booking processes, and ensure full compliance without undue burden or disruption.
Case against: Consumer advocates might argue that such a long delay postpones the benefits of transparency for consumers, allowing deceptive practices to continue for over a year after the bill's passage, which could be seen as undermining the urgency of the problem.
Estimated impact: Provides a significant grace period for industry adaptation, allowing for extensive system overhauls and training before the legal requirements become enforceable.