Connecticut shoppers booking a hotel room, buying event tickets, or signing up for a subscription will now see the full cost up front, with no surprise charges tacked on at checkout. The state has enacted P.A. 25-44, which treats the failure to include every mandatory fee in an advertised price as an automatic violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Attorney General William Tong backed the measure in legislative testimony, calling on lawmakers to stop businesses from using hidden charges to mislead consumers.
How P.A. 25-44 changes pricing enforcement in Connecticut
The new law does not simply give regulators another tool to investigate complaints on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it creates what the state advertising rules describe as a per se CUTPA violation for certain pricing practices. That distinction matters: a business that advertises a price without including all mandatory fees has already broken the law, without regulators needing to prove the omission was intentionally deceptive.
This automatic-violation structure stands apart from the federal approach. The Federal Trade Commission has issued business guidance on its rule addressing unfair or deceptive fees, but that framework still allows businesses to exclude government-imposed charges and shipping costs from the displayed total in many situations. Connecticut’s statute leaves far less room for carve-outs, requiring the sticker price to reflect what a buyer will actually pay.
The practical effect for businesses operating in Connecticut is straightforward. Any resort fee, service charge, or processing fee that the seller controls and the buyer cannot avoid must appear in the advertised number. Sellers who split mandatory costs into a lower base price plus add-on charges risk enforcement action the moment they post that ad, not after a drawn-out review. That applies across sectors, from hotels and short-term rentals to ticketing platforms, gyms, and subscription services.
For consumers, the most visible change should be a closer match between the headline price and the final checkout total. Instead of discovering a “facility fee” or “processing charge” only on the last payment screen, shoppers should see one all-in price wherever the offer appears. If they do not, the omission itself may be grounds for a CUTPA complaint.
Tong’s testimony and the federal comparison
Attorney General Tong submitted testimony supporting legislation to curb junk fees, framing hidden charges as a widespread consumer harm. He argued that drip pricing erodes trust, makes it harder for families to comparison-shop, and rewards businesses that obscure true costs over those that price transparently. His office also voiced support for the FTC’s own rulemaking on the same subject, signaling that Connecticut intended to move ahead regardless of the pace of federal action.
The state had already addressed a related pricing practice through Public Act 24-142, which set rules for credit card surcharges. Guidance from the Department of Consumer Protection on that law instructs businesses to frame payment-method price differences as posted discounts for cash rather than added fees for card use. Under the agency’s credit card surcharge materials, merchants must clearly disclose the higher card price and cannot surprise customers at the register with unannounced surcharges.
Together, the two laws reflect a clear direction: Connecticut wants the number consumers see first to be the number they pay. In Tong’s view, that alignment not only protects household budgets but also rewards honest competitors who already build unavoidable fees into their advertised prices.
The hypothesis that a per se violation standard will reduce hidden-fee complaints faster than the FTC’s case-by-case review model has logical force. When a business faces automatic liability rather than a lengthy investigation, the incentive to comply shifts from “we might get caught” to “we will lose if caught.” The new rule also simplifies enforcement for regulators, who can focus on whether all mandatory charges are included in the price rather than proving that a particular omission misled a reasonable consumer.
Open questions for businesses and consumers
Several gaps remain in the public record. The Department of Consumer Protection has not released baseline complaint data on hidden fees, so there is no published benchmark against which to measure the law’s impact over the coming months. Without those numbers, any claim about rapid improvement would be speculation, even if anecdotal reports suggest that some sectors move faster than others to comply.
Businesses also face operational questions as they adapt. Companies that sell in multiple states must decide whether to build separate Connecticut-specific pricing displays or adopt all-in pricing nationwide to simplify their systems. Online platforms that aggregate listings from many vendors will need to ensure that Connecticut-facing offers comply with the per se standard, even when the underlying seller is located elsewhere.
For consumers, the key near-term step is vigilance. Shoppers who still encounter mandatory fees added late in the checkout process can document screenshots and file complaints with state authorities. Those reports will help regulators identify patterns, test how well P.A. 25-44 works in practice, and decide whether further guidance or enforcement sweeps are needed.
As the law rolls out, the central question is whether clearer price tags translate into fewer surprises at checkout. Connecticut has placed its bet on bright-line rules and automatic violations. The coming enforcement record will show whether that approach delivers the transparent marketplace state officials have promised.
