Consumers booking hotel rooms, buying concert tickets, or ordering restaurant delivery in Connecticut will soon see the full cost of those transactions before they reach checkout. The state has enacted Public Act 25-44, which extends an earlier ticket-pricing transparency law to cover lodging, short-term rentals, and food and beverage delivery. The rule requires sellers to display the total price, including all mandatory fees, with only government-imposed taxes excluded. For shoppers tired of watching a quoted price climb at the payment screen, the practical effect is straightforward: the number shown first should be the number charged.
Why all-in pricing rules are expanding beyond ticket sales
Connecticut already had a head start on fee transparency. Public Act 23-98, which took effect on October 1, 2023, required event-ticket sellers to advertise prices that included mandatory charges. Governor Ned Lamont pushed to extend that framework to three additional sectors: event tickets (broadening the original scope), lodging and short-term rentals, and food and beverage sale and delivery. Senate Bill 15 carried that expansion through the legislature.
The logic behind the expansion is simple. If a hotel lists a room at $150 per night but tacks on a $35 “resort fee” and a $15 “amenity charge” at checkout, the real nightly cost is $200. Under the new statute, the hotel must advertise $200 up front, minus only taxes set by a government entity. The same principle applies to a delivery app that quotes $12 for a meal but adds a $4 service fee and a $2 platform charge before payment. Sellers can still charge those fees, but they cannot hide them behind a lower headline number.
Connecticut is not acting in isolation. The Federal Trade Commission has issued guidance treating mandatory fees the same way, defining them as charges a consumer cannot avoid regardless of how or when they pay. The state’s motor-vehicle advertising rules under Chapter 246 of the Connecticut General Statutes have long required dealers to include delivery charges, dealer preparation costs, and similar items in their advertised price. That longstanding approach to auto advertising provided a template for applying the same discipline to hospitality, entertainment, and food service.
How Public Act 25-44 defines the pricing requirement
Attorney General William Tong submitted testimony supporting SB 15, describing the bill as a measure to end “junk fees” by requiring sellers to display the total price including all mandatory fees and charges other than government-imposed taxes. That language sets a clear boundary: if a charge is optional, such as an upgrade or add-on the buyer actively selects, it does not need to appear in the base price. But if a charge is unavoidable for anyone completing the transaction, it must be folded into the advertised figure.
The administrative record for Public Act 25-44 reinforces this structure. The law focuses on what consumers see at the first meaningful point of contact, whether that is a website listing, mobile app screen, or printed advertisement. Businesses remain free to break out individual components-such as a base rate, service fee, and facility charge-so long as the most prominent price reflects the full amount a consumer must pay, excluding only taxes levied by a government body.
For hotels and short-term rentals, this means resort fees, destination charges, mandatory cleaning fees, and similar non-optional amounts must be included in the first displayed nightly rate. For ticket sellers, per-ticket service fees and required facility charges must be embedded in the initial ticket price rather than added late in the checkout process. Food and beverage sellers, whether operating their own ordering platforms or relying on third-party delivery apps, must ensure that mandatory service or platform fees are incorporated into the headline price shown when a consumer begins an order.
What businesses need to change in practice
Compliance will require both technical and operational adjustments. Online platforms may need to reconfigure pricing engines so that mandatory fees are calculated and merged into the first price a consumer sees, instead of being appended only after a ZIP code or payment method is entered. Marketing teams will have to revise advertising templates, ensuring that any large-font or highlighted price already includes compulsory charges.
Brick-and-mortar operations face similar obligations. Menu boards, printed rate cards, and in-store signage must avoid quoting a low price that is later increased by required charges. If a restaurant imposes a non-optional service fee on all dine-in checks, for example, the percentage impact of that fee should be reflected in the prices printed on menus or prominently disclosed in a way that makes the true total cost clear before ordering.
Industry groups have raised concerns about implementation costs and the complexity of integrating varied fee structures into a single headline number. Supporters of the law counter that many businesses already calculate these totals internally and that presenting them up front simply aligns the public-facing price with the amount ultimately charged. They also argue that clear, all-in pricing can enhance consumer trust and reduce disputes at checkout.
What consumers should expect
Once Public Act 25-44 is fully in force, consumers should see fewer surprises between the initial listing and the final bill. A hotel search result that shows $200 per night should match the pre-tax total at checkout. A concert ticket advertised at $95 should not jump to $120 when service and facility fees appear on the last screen. And a delivery app’s quoted price for a meal should already account for any mandatory platform or service charges, with only taxes and optional tips added later.
Enforcement will likely focus on patterns of noncompliance, such as businesses that systematically advertise artificially low prices or bury mandatory fees in fine print. Consumers who believe a seller has violated the all-in pricing requirement can document the discrepancy-such as screenshots of initial and final prices-and report it to state authorities. Over time, the expectation is that transparent pricing will become the norm, making it easier to compare offers and choose based on real costs rather than carefully structured illusions of a bargain.
