FTC Fines Travel App Hopper $35 Million Over Hidden "Junk Fees"
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited July 3, 2026). · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
FTC Fines Travel App Hopper $35 Million Over Hidden "Junk Fees"
On July 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that travel-booking app Hopper agreed to pay $35 million and is barred from misrepresenting fees, resolving allegations it charged consumers for hidden, pre-selected "Tip" and "VIP Support" add-ons despite promising "no hidden fees."
Information last verified on July 3, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.
Jurisdiction scope: This is federal Federal Trade Commission enforcement under the FTC Act, and it reaches consumers nationwide who booked through Hopper. State unfair-and-deceptive-practices (UDAP) laws can also apply to hidden-fee conduct; see our overview of US consumer lemon laws for related state-level consumer protections.
What Happened
The Federal Trade Commission announced on July 2, 2026 that Hopper Inc., a Canadian company, and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc. agreed to pay $35 million and to a set of conduct restrictions to resolve allegations that the companies unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total price of bookings and the benefits of certain add-on services. The FTC's Commission voted 2-0 to authorize filing the complaint and a stipulated proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
According to the FTC's complaint, until mid-2023 Hopper's app presented consumers ready to complete a booking with a screen listing a "total price" next to a "Swipe to Book" button. That screen, the FTC alleges, did not adequately disclose that Hopper would add separate charges for a "Tip" and for "VIP Support." Those add-ons were framed as optional but were pre-selected by default, and the screen disclosing them appeared only if a consumer scrolled down past the swipe-to-book prompt. The FTC alleges this design ran counter to Hopper's own marketing promise of "no hidden fees."
The complaint further alleges that Hopper charged consumers for the VIP Support fee without their express informed consent and misrepresented what VIP Support and a separate "Price Freeze" service actually delivered. On Price Freeze, the FTC alleges Hopper failed to clearly disclose that the price lock applied only up to a set dollar limit and only if the booking remained available, and that Hopper did not apply the Price Freeze fee toward the cost of the booking as it had promised. The FTC also states that Hopper's own internal testing found that if the Tip and VIP Support fees were clearly disclosed and left unselected by default, most consumers would decline them, a finding the agency cites as evidence the company knew the design steered consumers toward paying.
The proposed order requires Hopper to pay $35 million and prohibits the company from misrepresenting any fee or charge. It further requires Hopper to clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees and the total price of a booking, including the final payment amount, before a consumer completes a transaction.
What the Law Actually Says
The FTC's complaint is grounded in Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." A practice is unfair under Section 5 when it causes substantial consumer injury that consumers cannot reasonably avoid and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. A practice is deceptive when a representation, omission, or practice misleads a reasonable consumer in a way that is likely to affect that consumer's decision. Pre-selecting a paid add-on so that a consumer must notice and affirmatively uncheck it to avoid being charged is the kind of "dark pattern" the FTC has repeatedly treated as both unfair and deceptive under Section 5, because it obscures the real cost of a transaction at the moment a consumer is deciding whether to buy.
For bookings of short-term lodging made since May 12, 2025, the complaint also alleges violations of the FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, commonly called the Junk Fees Rule. That rule, finalized in December 2024 and effective May 12, 2025, requires businesses that offer short-term lodging or live-event tickets to disclose the total price, inclusive of most mandatory fees, prominently and before a consumer is asked to pay, and bars misrepresenting what any fee is for or what it covers. The rule targets exactly the pattern the FTC alleges here: a headline "total price" that omits charges added later in the checkout flow.
These federal fee-disclosure standards work alongside state-level consumer protection. Many states have their own unfair-and-deceptive-practices statutes that reach hidden or bait-and-switch pricing, and some, like Connecticut's recent auto-renewal and consumer-protection provisions, add a private right of action on top of regulator enforcement (see our coverage of Connecticut's auto-renewal and right-to-repair rules).
Analysis: Why This Matters
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
The Hopper settlement extends a pattern the FTC has pursued across several agencies and industries: treating checkout-flow design itself as a potential Section 5 violation, not just the underlying price. The agency's emphasis on Hopper's internal testing, showing that clear, unselected disclosure would have led most consumers to decline the fees, mirrors reasoning the FTC has used in other unfairness cases, where a company's own data on how consumers would behave with honest defaults becomes evidence of what the deceptive defaults were designed to accomplish.
The case also shows how the 2025 Junk Fees Rule interacts with the FTC's older Section 5 authority rather than replacing it. The complaint alleges Section 5 violations for the full period at issue, and layers on Junk Fees Rule violations only for the period after the rule took effect on May 12, 2025 and only for short-term lodging bookings. That structure is consistent with how the FTC has said it intends to use the rule: as an additional, more specific tool for lodging and ticketing fees, alongside its general unfairness and deception authority, which the agency has applied to junk fees in other sectors including rental housing. This settlement fits a broader 2025 to 2026 FTC enforcement track record on hidden and mandatory fees across industries.
How This Affects You
A lawful checkout for lodging, travel add-ons, or similar services generally must show the total price, including mandatory fees, before you are asked to pay, and any optional add-on should require you to affirmatively choose it rather than being charged by default. If a screen shows one "total" and additional charges appear only after you scroll or on a later screen, that is the kind of design regulators have targeted as a dark pattern.
Before completing a booking, it can help to review each line item, including any tip, service, or "VIP" charge, and confirm whether it was already selected for you. If a service like a price-lock or price-freeze fee comes with conditions, such as a dollar cap or an availability requirement, look for that condition disclosed clearly, not buried in terms you have to search for.
If you believe you were charged for an add-on you did not knowingly select, you generally have options: dispute the charge with your card issuer, contact the company directly, and file a complaint with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov. This article describes general consumer-protection concepts and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice about a specific charge or transaction.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers federal FTC consumer-protection enforcement and reflects sources verified on July 3, 2026. This is a developing story; consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation.
Sources
- Federal Trade Commission, "Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products," July 2, 2026
- Federal Trade Commission, "Federal Trade Commission Announces Bipartisan Rule Banning Junk Ticket and Hotel Fees," December 2024
- Federal Trade Commission, "The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees: Frequently Asked Questions"
- Federal Register, "Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees," January 10, 2025
- Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Section 5)
Related articles
- US consumer lemon laws
- Connecticut auto-renewal and right-to-repair rules (PA 25-44)
- FTC bans Mobilewalla from selling sensitive location data
- FTC fines Amazon over FCRA identity-theft records
- FTC noncompete ban struck down in Ryan v. FTC
Last updated: 2026-07-03. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-03.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the FTC allege against Hopper?
The FTC alleged that Hopper's checkout screen showed a total price without adequately disclosing that it would add a pre-selected 'Tip' and 'VIP Support' fee, contrary to the company's 'no hidden fees' promise, and that Hopper misrepresented the benefits of its VIP Support and Price Freeze services.
How much is Hopper paying in the settlement?
Hopper Inc. and its subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc. agreed to pay $35 million as part of a stipulated proposed order filed with the FTC's complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, announced July 2, 2026.
What are 'junk fees' in FTC enforcement terms?
Junk fees generally refers to mandatory or hard-to-avoid charges that are hidden, disclosed late in a purchase, or misrepresented, so the price a consumer sees upfront does not match what they actually pay. The FTC treats hiding such fees as potentially unfair or deceptive under the FTC Act, and its Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees specifically addresses short-term lodging and live-event ticket pricing.
Is it legal to pre-check optional add-ons at checkout?
Pre-selecting a paid add-on so a consumer must notice and uncheck it to avoid being charged is the kind of design the FTC has challenged as an unfair or deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, particularly where the charge is not clearly disclosed before purchase.
What is the FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees?
Also called the Junk Fees Rule, it took effect May 12, 2025 and requires businesses offering short-term lodging or live-event tickets to disclose the total price, including most mandatory fees, clearly and before a consumer is asked to pay, and prohibits misrepresenting what a fee covers.
How do I dispute a hidden or unauthorized fee I was charged?
You can generally contact the company to request a refund, dispute the charge with your credit card issuer or bank, and file a complaint with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Keep records of the checkout screens and confirmation emails showing what was disclosed.
Does this settlement mean Hopper admitted wrongdoing?
The FTC's announcement describes a stipulated proposed order resolving its allegations; such settlements typically resolve claims without a trial and do not necessarily include an admission of liability. The court record for the case would reflect the final terms.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 15
§ 45Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by CommissionIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful. The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b) ], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 3,207 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963) applied the bank exclusion in 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(6) when construing Clayton Act section 7, and Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (1984) noted that a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries remain subject to section 5 of the FTC Act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1992, 504 U.S. 374)“…etition in commerce.” 38 Stat. 719 , codified as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 45 (a)(1). That type of prohibition is ent…”
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1984, 467 U.S. 752)“…d § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719 , 15 U. S. C. §45 . That these statutes are adequate to c…”
- Bowen v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court of the United States 1988, 487 U.S. 879)“…n required to exhaust before coming into court. See 15 U. S. C. §45 (c) (1940 ed.); 29 U. S. C. § 160 (f)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: FTC Finalizes Order Against Illuminate Over Student Data Breach (2026), How the FTC's Nationwide Noncompete Ban Was Struck Down, and What It Means for At-Will Workers, FTC Proposes Personalized Pricing Enforcement Policy, Seeks Comment
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- FTC press release, Travel App Hopper to Pay $35 Million to Settle FTC Allegations It Charged Fees Without Consent and Deceived Users About Fees and Benefits of Some Products, July 2, 2026(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC press release, Federal Trade Commission Announces Bipartisan Rule Banning Junk Ticket and Hotel Fees, December 2024(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC, The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees: Frequently Asked Questions(ftc.gov).gov
- Federal Register, Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, January 10, 2025(federalregister.gov).gov
- Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S.C. 45 (FTC Act Section 5)(law.cornell.edu)