Travelers booking hotel rooms and concert tickets now face a different checkout experience than they did a year ago. The Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning hidden fees in live-event ticketing and short-term lodging took effect on May 12, 2025, requiring sellers to display the full price, including all mandatory charges, before a consumer clicks “buy.” The agency has already shown it will enforce the mandate: StubHub agreed to refund $10 million to customers after the FTC alleged the platform failed to disclose fees up front.
How the FTC fee ban changed hotel and ticket pricing
The rule, approved on a bipartisan Commission vote in late 2024, targets a specific consumer pain point: the gap between the price advertised on a search page and the total that appears at checkout. Hotels that once tacked on resort fees, amenity charges, or cleaning surcharges after a guest selected a room must now fold those costs into the listed rate. Live-event ticket platforms face the same obligation for service fees, facility charges, and other mandatory add-ons. Short-term vacation rentals are covered as well.
The practical effect is straightforward: the number a shopper sees first should be the number charged at the end. Sellers can still break out government taxes and certain optional upgrades separately, but any fee the buyer cannot avoid must appear in the total price from the start, according to FTC guidance on the rule’s effective date. Misrepresenting the nature or purpose of a fee is also prohibited, and the agency has emphasized that disclosures cannot be buried in fine print or delayed until the final checkout screen.
One question the rule raises is whether its impact will differ by market concentration. In cities with dozens of competing hotels or multiple ticket resale platforms, sellers have a stronger incentive to display lower all-in prices to win clicks. In markets where one or two dominant players control supply, the pressure to compete on transparent pricing is weaker. No federal dataset yet measures pre- and post-May 2025 price spreads across high- and low-competition markets, but the structural logic suggests the gap between advertised and final prices will shrink fastest where rivalry is fiercest.
The FTC has tried to address implementation questions through compliance materials. In an online frequently asked questions document, the agency explains that businesses may still show a base rate, but any unavoidable surcharge must be included in the most prominent price display. The guidance also clarifies that platforms aggregating listings – such as travel sites that show rooms from multiple hotel brands – are responsible for ensuring that the prices they present comply with the rule, even when the underlying fees originate with third-party hosts.
StubHub’s $10 million refund and the airline gap
The FTC’s case against StubHub offers the clearest early signal of how enforcement will work. The agency alleged that the ticket resale platform advertised prices that excluded mandatory fees, then revealed the true cost only at checkout. Under the resulting settlement, StubHub is refunding $10 million to affected consumers and is barred from repeating the practice. That dollar figure, while modest relative to StubHub’s transaction volume, establishes a concrete cost for noncompliance that other platforms will weigh against the expense of retooling their pricing displays.
The StubHub case also illustrates how the rule reaches beyond primary ticket sellers. Resale platforms, marketplace intermediaries, and white-label services that power venue ticketing all fall within the definition of covered entities when they control what price a consumer first sees. Industry lawyers say that makes it harder for companies to argue that fee disclosures are solely the responsibility of upstream partners or venue owners.
Airlines, however, sit in a different regulatory lane. The Department of Transportation, not the FTC, has primary authority over air carrier advertising and disclosure practices, and the new junk fee rule explicitly carves out sectors subject to separate federal regimes. That means the all-in pricing requirements now binding hotels and concert sellers do not automatically extend to base fares, seat selection charges, or baggage fees. For travelers, the result is a split-screen experience: a hotel search that shows a single, comprehensive nightly rate alongside a flight search that may still reveal key costs only after several clicks.
Consumer advocates argue that this regulatory gap risks confusing shoppers who may assume that a unified federal policy governs all travel and entertainment purchases. Some have urged Congress to harmonize standards or to expand DOT’s mandate so that airline websites and apps must mirror the FTC’s “total price” approach. Industry groups counter that air travel involves more complex, itinerary-specific pricing and warn that rigid display rules could limit flexibility or obscure useful fare breakdowns.
For now, the immediate changes are most visible in the hotel and live-event sectors. Early anecdotal reports from consumer groups suggest that while some all-in prices appear higher than before, the shopping process feels less deceptive and comparison across brands is easier. Economists will need more time and data to determine whether the rule ultimately lowers average costs or simply reshuffles when and how fees are presented. What is clear already is that the FTC has signaled a willingness to pair its new authority with active enforcement, leaving companies little room to treat the May 2025 shift as a mere suggestion rather than a binding change in how they present prices to the public.
Free for readers: The free Retirement Shield newsletter sends plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement — the scams to dodge, the benefits you’re owed, and what’s changing with Social Security and Medicare, a couple times a week. Get the free newsletter.
