Junk Fee Prevention Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 4, 2025
Bottom line
The Junk Fee Prevention Act seeks to increase price transparency and reduce unexpected costs for consumers by regulating various types of fees in the lodging, ticketing, communications, and airline sectors.
What it actually does
This bill aims to enhance consumer protection by mandating price transparency and prohibiting excessive or deceptive fees across several industries. It requires covered entities in short-term lodging and ticketing to display all-in pricing, prohibits excessive early termination fees for communication services, and mandates detailed ancillary fee reporting for air carriers. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are granted broad rulemaking and enforcement authority to implement these provisions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for consumer protection, as it combats predatory pricing practices and ensures consumers know the full cost of goods and services upfront. They contend that hidden and excessive fees erode trust, create confusion, and make it difficult for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, thereby stifling fair competition.
Opponents contend
Critics may contend that the bill imposes significant regulatory burdens on businesses, potentially leading to increased base prices or reduced service flexibility rather than true cost savings for consumers. They might also argue that defining 'excessive' or 'deceptive' fees is subjective and could lead to regulatory overreach or stifle innovative business models that rely on unbundled services.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, allowing for a thorough understanding of its provisions within a reasonable timeframe, enabling informed public discourse.
Section 2(a)-(b)
Mandatory Fee Transparency and Prohibition of Excessive Fees
This provision requires covered entities, including providers of short-term lodging and ticketing services, to clearly and conspicuously display the total price of a good or service, including all mandatory fees and government charges, at the first instance a price is shown or advertised to a consumer. It also prohibits these entities from imposing or advertising any mandatory fees that are excessive or deceptive.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that consumers deserve to know the full price upfront to make informed decisions and avoid surprise charges, fostering a more transparent and fair marketplace.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that it is challenging for businesses to display a single 'total price' due to variable local taxes or optional add-ons, and that defining 'excessive' is subjective and burdensome for compliance.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances consumer protection and the desire for transparent pricing against business flexibility and the administrative costs of compliance.
Section 2(c)
Disclosure of Total Tickets for Live Events
For tickets to live performances, this provision mandates that covered entities (ticketing services) must clearly and conspicuously disclose the total number of tickets offered for sale or available for a given event at least 72 hours prior to the first public sale or presale. This aims to provide transparency regarding ticket availability.
Section 2(d)-(e)
Refund Protections and Speculative Ticketing Disclosure
This section requires covered entities to clearly disclose any guarantee or refund policy before a transaction is completed and to provide a full refund, including mandatory fees, if a refund is due. Additionally, for speculative ticketing (selling tickets not yet possessed), entities must provide clear notice to the consumer and offer a full refund if the advertised ticket cannot be provided in a timely manner.
Section 2(f)-(h)
Federal Trade Commission Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to promulgate rules regarding the disclosure and imposition of mandatory or deceptive fees, including those not explicitly detailed in the bill. It also outlines factors for determining if a mandatory fee is 'excessive' (e.g., reasonableness, proportionality to cost). Furthermore, it establishes that violations will be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act, and grants State Attorneys General the power to bring civil actions to enforce the provisions.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition of Excessive Early Termination Fees and Prorated Billing for Communications Services
This section prohibits providers of covered communication services (such as broadband, voice, mobile, and video programming) from charging excessive or unreasonable fees for early termination of a service agreement. It also mandates that providers offer a prorated credit or rebate to consumers for any unused days in a billing cycle after a service is terminated. The provision clarifies that charges for unreturned rental equipment or outstanding purchased devices are still permitted.
Section 3(b)
Aggregate Price Transparency in Billing and Promotional Materials for Communications Services
This provision requires providers of covered communication services to state a single, clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate aggregate price for the service on consumer bills and in promotional materials. For introductory or temporary prices, providers must disclose the end date of the promotional period and the post-promotion rate at least 60 and 30 days before the change. If prices vary by location, the method to obtain location-specific pricing must also be disclosed.
Section 3(c)-(e)
Federal Communications Commission Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority for Communications Services
This section directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to initiate a rulemaking proceeding within 180 days of enactment to consider requiring disclosure or prohibiting mandatory fees for covered communication services, especially those a consumer would reasonably expect to be included in the advertised price. It grants the FCC the authority to promulgate regulations to implement these requirements and enforces violations under the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 4(a)
Department of Transportation Quarterly Reporting on Air Carrier Ancillary Fees
This section amends existing law to require air carriers and foreign 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' (e.g., checked baggage, seat selection, change/cancellation fees), disaggregated by service and class, and describe collection methods. The Secretary is then required to compile and publish this information on the Department of Transportation's website.
The definition of 'covered entity' for the purposes of consumer protection from hidden and excessive fees includes 'any other entity determined appropriate by the Commission through a rulemaking'.
Section 2(i)(1)(A)(iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide regulatory agencies with flexibility to adapt to future market developments and address new forms of deceptive practices without requiring new legislation.
Case for: Supporters argue this flexibility is crucial for the FTC to address emerging 'junk fee' issues in industries not explicitly named in the bill, ensuring the legislation remains effective over time.
Case against: Critics might contend that this grants overly broad and potentially unchecked authority to an unelected body, allowing for unforeseen regulatory expansion into various sectors without direct congressional approval.
Estimated impact: Potentially very significant, as it could expand the Act's reach to numerous other industries beyond lodging and ticketing, impacting a wide range of businesses and consumers.
The definition of 'mandatory fee' includes 'a fee or surcharge for a good or service that a reasonable consumer would not expect to be included with the purchase of the good or service being advertised' and 'any other fee or surcharge determined appropriate by the Commission.'
Section 2(i)(3)(C)-(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide regulatory agencies with the necessary flexibility to interpret and apply the law to a wide range of scenarios, including novel or evolving deceptive practices.
Case for: Proponents argue these clauses are essential for the FTC to effectively combat creative ways businesses might try to impose hidden or unexpected fees, ensuring comprehensive consumer protection.
Case against: Critics might argue that these definitions introduce significant subjectivity and potential for arbitrary enforcement, creating uncertainty for businesses regarding what constitutes a 'mandatory fee' or what a 'reasonable consumer' would expect.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of fees that could be challenged or prohibited under the Act, potentially impacting a wide array of business practices and revenue streams.
The definition of 'covered service' for communications includes 'any other service offered or provided as part of a bundle or package with any service described in clauses (i) through (v) of subparagraph (A).'
Section 3(e)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent circumvention of the law by ensuring that regulations apply to bundled services, which are common in the communications industry.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that communication service providers cannot evade the fee transparency and prohibition requirements by bundling services and hiding fees within the package price.
Case against: Critics might contend that this could inadvertently capture services not intended for regulation, increasing compliance complexity for providers and potentially limiting innovative bundling options for consumers.
Estimated impact: Ensures the FCC's authority extends comprehensively to bundled communication services, impacting how these packages are priced and advertised.
The definition of 'critical ancillary service' for air carriers includes 'any other service determined appropriate by the Secretary.'
Section 4(a) amending 41708(d)(2)(B)(iv)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide the Department of Transportation (DOT) with flexibility to adapt to new types of ancillary fees that airlines might introduce in the future.
Case for: Proponents argue this flexibility is necessary for the DOT to keep pace with evolving airline pricing strategies and ensure that all significant ancillary fees are subject to reporting requirements.
Case against: Critics might contend that this grants overly broad authority to the Secretary of Transportation, potentially leading to unforeseen regulatory expansion and increased reporting burdens for airlines without specific congressional direction.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could expand the scope of ancillary fees that airlines are required to report, impacting airline revenue transparency and operational data collection.