Relating To Transient Accommodations.
HB973 would require greater price transparency for transient accommodations in Hawaii. It prohibits transient accommodations brokers and other persons or entities from advertising or displaying a rental rate that excludes resort fees, and it requires all applicable government-imposed taxes and fees to be included in the total price shown before a consumer reserves a stay. The bill applies broadly across the tourism booking ecosystem, including hotels, motels, short-term rentals, online travel agencies, metasearch sites, and short-term rental platforms.
The measure also creates an enforcement mechanism and penalty structure. Violations would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation, and enforcement authority would rest with the attorney general or a county prosecuting attorney. The bill defines key terms by reference to existing Hawaii law, including “resort fee,” “transient accommodations,” and “transient accommodations broker,” and states that its requirements are additional to any other legal duties.
In practical terms, the bill would amend Chapter 481B of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by adding a new section on transient accommodations fee transparency. It would affect how lodging prices are advertised and disclosed, likely requiring businesses and booking platforms to change pricing displays and checkout practices so consumers see an all-in price earlier in the booking process. The bill also includes severability and non-retroactivity provisions, and it is set to take effect on January 1, 3000, which is a common placeholder effective date used in introduced legislation.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is consumer-protection oriented and supportive of standardized, upfront pricing. The findings emphasize preventing consumers from being misled and creating a level playing field across the tourism industry, suggesting the bill is framed as a fairness and transparency measure rather than a tax increase or regulatory burden. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action.
Because no discussion transcripts or votes are available, there are no documented points of contention in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, any likely concerns would center on compliance costs for hotels, short-term rental operators, and online booking platforms, as well as how broadly the disclosure requirements would apply across different distribution channels. However, those concerns are not explicitly stated in the record provided.
HB973 would add a new fee-transparency requirement to Chapter 481B of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, making it unlawful for transient accommodations brokers and other entities to advertise lodging rates without including resort fees and, before booking, all applicable government-imposed taxes and fees. It would create a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation and authorize enforcement by the attorney general or county prosecutors, thereby expanding state consumer-protection and unfair-competition enforcement in the lodging market. The bill would directly affect hotels, motels, short-term rental operators, online travel agencies, metasearch sites, and booking platforms that market transient accommodations in Hawaii.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect a generally favorable, consumer-protection sentiment. It is presented as a transparency measure intended to prevent misleading advertising and ensure that consumers see the full cost of a stay earlier in the booking process. The available record contains no committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s own framing.
No committee transcripts or voting history were provided, so there are no recorded points of contention in the supplied materials. From the bill text, the most likely areas of debate would be the scope of coverage—whether the rule should apply to all booking channels and entities—and the compliance burden on lodging businesses and platforms that would need to revise pricing displays and checkout systems. Another possible issue is the $10,000-per-violation penalty, which could be viewed as significant depending on how violations are counted and enforced.