Junk Fee Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bynum, Janelle S. [D-OR-5]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The 'Junk Fee Prevention Act' seeks to enhance consumer protection by requiring upfront disclosure and limiting the imposition of hidden or excessive fees across the lodging, ticketing, communications, and airline industries.
What it actually does
This bill aims to increase transparency and limit certain fees across several consumer-facing industries. It mandates that covered entities, including short-term lodging providers and ticketing services, clearly display total prices upfront, prohibits excessive or deceptive fees, and establishes specific rules for ticket sales and refunds. For communications services, it seeks to end excessive early termination fees and ensure aggregate price transparency in billing and advertising. Additionally, it requires air carriers to report detailed ancillary fee revenue to the Department of Transportation for public disclosure.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will protect consumers from predatory business practices, restore fairness to transactions, and empower individuals to make informed purchasing decisions by ensuring full price transparency. They contend that hidden and excessive fees disproportionately burden consumers and that this legislation is a necessary step to curb corporate overreach and promote a more honest marketplace.
Opponents contend
Opponents or industry groups might argue that the bill imposes overly burdensome regulatory requirements on businesses, potentially leading to increased operational costs that could be passed on to consumers through higher base prices. They may also contend that the definitions of 'excessive' or 'deceptive' fees are subjective and could lead to inconsistent enforcement, stifling innovation and competition within affected sectors.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading due to its multi-sector approach and reliance on existing regulatory frameworks. An informed reader would need sufficient time to understand the specific provisions and their implications across different industries.
Section 2(a)
Protecting Consumers From Hidden Fees
This provision requires businesses (covered entities) to clearly show the total price of a good or service, including all mandatory fees and government charges, in every advertisement and when a price is first presented to a consumer. It also mandates that these mandatory fees cannot change from the advertised amount during the purchase process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses the problem of 'bait-and-switch' pricing and hidden charges, allowing consumers to compare prices accurately and avoid unexpected costs at checkout.
Critics contend
Industry groups might argue that integrating all fees into an initial advertised price can be complex, especially for services with variable government charges or optional add-ons, potentially limiting flexibility in pricing strategies.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer demand for transparent 'all-in' pricing against businesses' desire for flexible pricing structures and the administrative challenges of dynamically displaying total costs across various platforms.
Section 2(b) and 2(g)
Prohibition of Excessive and Deceptive Fees with Criteria for Assessment
This section prohibits covered entities from imposing or advertising mandatory fees that are excessive or deceptive. It further provides criteria for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or courts to consider when determining if a fee is excessive, including whether it is reasonable and proportional to the service's cost, and the reason for the charge.
Section 3(a)
Ending Early Termination Fees and Excess Billing Cycle Charges for Communications Services
This provision prohibits providers of covered communications services (like broadband, voice, or mobile) from charging excessive or unreasonable fees for early termination of a service agreement. It also requires these providers to give consumers a prorated credit or rebate for any unused days in a billing cycle after service termination. Exceptions are made for unreturned rental equipment or outstanding device purchase costs.
Section 3(b)
Truth in Billing and Advertising for Communications Services
This provision mandates that communications service providers display an aggregate (total) price for their services as a single, clear line item on consumer bills and in promotional materials. For introductory or temporary prices, providers must disclose the end date of the promotion and the post-promotion rate at least 60 and 30 days before the change. Location-dependent pricing must also be clearly explained.
Section 4(a)
Air Carrier Ancillary Fee Transparency and Reporting
This provision amends federal law to require air carriers operating in the U.S. to file quarterly reports with the Secretary of Transportation. These reports must detail total revenue from 'ancillary fees' (fees for critical supplemental services like baggage, reservation changes, or seat selection), disaggregated by service and class, and how these fees are collected. The Secretary is then required to compile and publish this information on the Department of Transportation's website.
The definition of 'covered entity' under the FTC's jurisdiction includes 'any other entity determined appropriate by the Commission through a rulemaking'. This grants the FTC broad authority to expand the scope of industries subject to its 'junk fee' regulations beyond lodging and ticketing.
Section 2(i)(1)(A)(iii)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to grant regulatory agencies flexibility to adapt to evolving market practices without requiring new legislation for every new type of 'junk fee' issue. It allows for future-proofing the legislation.
Case for: Proponents would argue this flexibility is essential to ensure the law remains effective against new forms of hidden or excessive fees that may emerge in other sectors, allowing the FTC to proactively protect consumers.
Case against: Critics might argue that this grants too much power to an unelected agency, allowing it to unilaterally expand its jurisdiction and impose regulations on industries not explicitly named by Congress, leading to regulatory uncertainty.
Estimated impact: Potentially broad, as it could extend the bill's provisions to numerous other sectors of the economy, depending on future FTC rulemakings.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is directed to commence a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether to 'prohibit the imposition of mandatory fees with respect to a covered service' for communications services, not just require their disclosure.
Section 3(c)(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This phrasing allows Congress to direct the FCC to explore a strong regulatory option without immediately enacting a blanket prohibition, providing a pathway for more aggressive action if deemed necessary after study.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the ability to prohibit certain mandatory fees is crucial for truly eliminating egregious 'junk fees' in the communications sector, going beyond mere transparency to direct consumer relief.
Case against: Communications service providers would likely argue that a prohibition on mandatory fees could severely disrupt their business models, which often rely on such fees to cover specific costs, and could lead to higher base prices or reduced service quality.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could fundamentally alter the pricing structures of broadband, voice, mobile, and video programming services, depending on the scope of any FCC prohibition.
The Secretary of Transportation is explicitly required to compile the ancillary fee information reported by air carriers into a single quarterly report and 'publish such report on the internet website of the Department of Transportation', overriding existing confidentiality provisions.
Section 4(a)(1)(C)
Why it matters:This is a deliberate legislative choice to ensure public access to data that might otherwise be considered proprietary, reflecting a strong intent for transparency in the airline industry.
Case for: Proponents argue that public disclosure of this data is essential for true market transparency, allowing consumers, policymakers, and researchers to understand the full scope of ancillary fee revenue and compare airline practices.
Case against: Airlines might argue that this public disclosure of detailed revenue streams from specific services could reveal commercially sensitive information to competitors, potentially harming their business strategies.
Estimated impact: Significant, as it would provide unprecedented public insight into a substantial revenue stream for airlines, potentially influencing consumer behavior and competitive strategies.