When an unexpected fee appears at the final step of an online checkout, the extra cost is often more than an annoyance. For household budgets, repeated add-ons for event tickets, hotel rooms, food delivery, and monthly service subscriptions can alter the real cost of basic purchases. State attorneys general have stepped directly into this space, relying on long-standing consumer protection statutes alongside newer disclosure mandates to challenge how businesses present prices to the public.
Rather than waiting for federal standards to settle every industry practice, state enforcement officials are establishing clear baselines for what constitutes a deceptive price quote. Understanding the legal mechanisms state officials use can help buyers evaluate checkout screens, recognize questionable surcharges, and understand why certain pricing practices are facing regulatory scrutiny across the country.
Why state attorneys general are acting on junk fees
State attorneys general are pursuing hidden and misleading fees under existing state laws against unfair and deceptive acts and practices, commonly known as UDAP laws. These statutes give state officials broad authority to stop deceptive commerce even before a legislature enacts a targeted junk fee statute. When state lawmakers do pass specific disclosure measures, those new statutes sit alongside existing UDAP authority rather than replacing it. State officials enforce these standards through formal litigation, regulatory guidance, and administrative enforcement statements.
A clear example of this approach appears in New Jersey. State officials launched an initiative targeting hidden fees, bait-and-switch pricing, and vague or obscure language under the state's Consumer Fraud Act and through the Division of Consumer Affairs. An executive order directed state agencies to compile recommendations for reducing or eliminating unnecessary charges, while an Enforcement Statement on Junk Fees established how current consumer protection standards apply to checkout disclosures. According to legal analysis from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, state attorneys general continue to rely heavily on general deceptive-practice statutes to address pricing mechanisms across retail sectors.
This framework matters to consumers because it outlines how regulators evaluate unfairness. Under state consumer protection standards, a fee added late in the purchasing flow or masked by confusing labels can be treated as unlawful deception even if the merchant technically buried an explanation somewhere in its terms and conditions.
What Massachusetts and California require
Specific state regulations provide clear rules on how and when a full price must appear. In Massachusetts, an Attorney General regulation on junk fees and deceptive pricing took effect on September 2, 2025. Rooted in Chapter 93, the commonwealth's primary consumer protection statute, the regulation covers the marketing, solicitation, and sale of products for personal, family, or household use. It also establishes strict rules for trial offers and negative option contracts, where a merchant treats a customer's silence or inaction as permission to continue billing.
Under the Massachusetts rule, detailed by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, businesses must disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information displayed. While government-imposed taxes and shipping charges may be excluded from the initial headline price, the final transaction amount must state the full figure including those items. The rule allows housing rentals to be advertised as periodic rates, such as a monthly amount, provided the full duration covered is clearly stated. Similarly, third-party food delivery platforms may list menu prices set by independent restaurants, but they must clearly and conspicuously display all mandatory charges up front.
California approached the issue through legislation. California's SB 478, known as the Hidden Fees Statute, amended the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act effective July 1, 2024. The law prohibits advertising, displaying, or offering a price that excludes mandatory fees or charges. As clarified by guidance on California's hidden fees ban, the only permissible exclusions from the all-in advertised price are government taxes and reasonable shipping costs. The guidance confirms that a merchant cannot remedy an undisclosed mandatory fee by revealing it later in the checkout funnel, or by displaying it only on the final payment confirmation screen. The total mandatory figure must accompany the price the very first time it is shown to the shopper.
Where the rules draw lines
State enforcement guidance establishes several functional boundaries between permissible pricing methods and unlawful surcharges. The California Attorney General guidance explains that if a business does not know the final mandatory charge at the start of a transaction, it should refrain from showing an incomplete price until the actual figure is determined. A generic disclaimer stating that prices may change does not satisfy the requirement.
At the same time, state rules distinguish between mandatory charges and genuinely optional services. An optional fee, such as an elective seat selection or supplemental add-on service, does not need to be folded into the initial headline price. Charges that depend entirely on subsequent consumer behavior, such as a late return penalty, are also excluded from the definition of a mandatory fee.
State-level activity is spreading beyond a few coastal jurisdictions. Tracking published by the National Conference of State Legislatures notes that at least 30 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have weighed legislation targeting pricing disclosure or fee restrictions. Recent statutory updates include Hawaii's all-in pricing requirements for live event ticketing and short-term lodging, as well as Tennessee's rules requiring lodging platforms to disclose additional fees for hotel amenities such as parking, breakfast, spa access, and early or late check-in.
Questions to ask before you pay
As state rules take effect across different regions, consumers can examine transaction screens systematically before entering payment details. Checking for a few specific elements can help identify whether a pricing display complies with common state transparency standards:
- Is the advertised price complete? Verify whether the initial figure includes all mandatory fees, excluding only government taxes and standard delivery charges where permitted by law. If mandatory service or processing fees only materialize on the checkout page, the pricing flow may conflict with standard state disclosure rules.
- Are optional fees truly avoidable? For any add-on fee labeled as optional or waivable, confirm that the merchant clearly explains how to decline or remove the charge before payment is processed.
- Did the full cost appear before personal details were requested? Under strict disclosure rules, merchants should present the total cost before prompting a buyer to submit contact or billing credentials.
- Are trial terms clearly documented? When signing up for a trial offer or subscription, check whether the seller provided written instructions on how to cancel before a recurring charge takes effect.
What these sources do not tell us
While state enforcement actions and statutory enactments show how the regulatory environment is changing, the available administrative records leave several open questions. The published materials do not detail specific settlement amounts, civil penalties, or completed judicial rulings resulting from recent state attorney general actions. In New Jersey, the sources do not reveal whether agency recommendations have been formally published or how the state's enforcement statement has been applied to specific active investigations.
Furthermore, these source documents do not detail complaint filing procedures for individual consumers, nor do they specify how jurisdiction is divided among state agencies when an issue spans multiple industries. The materials do not address how state fee rules align with federal regulatory frameworks, including whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or related entities have set parallel mandates. The Federal Trade Commission maintains its own regulatory materials on deceptive fees, but its specific question-and-answer guidance was not captured in these references. Finally, these state statutes and guidance documents focus on retail goods, lodging, ticketing, and consumer services, leaving open how identical legal theories might apply to banking products, loans, or credit card agreements.
Please seek a professional. This article is general information, not financial, tax or insurance advice. Please seek a licensed financial, tax or insurance professional about your own situation.
