SB354 would regulate pricing disclosures for transient accommodations and resort time share vacation interests, plans, or units in Hawaii. The bill targets “junk fees” and “drip pricing” by requiring that any fee charged for these lodging-related transactions be disclosed before the time of purchase, and by requiring advertisements—including online ads—to show a clearly and conspicuously advertised price that includes all fees to be charged at purchase.
The bill also requires that any taxes or fees shown as a percentage during a booking transaction be displayed as a dollar amount as well. In effect, it would force hotels, short-term lodging providers, and resort time share sellers to present consumers with a more complete upfront price, rather than revealing mandatory charges later in the booking process. The measure would amend Chapter 481B of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by adding a new section governing these disclosures, and it would take effect upon approval.
Impact
If enacted, SB354 would add a new consumer-protection requirement to Hawaii law governing transient accommodations and resort time share transactions. It would prohibit undisclosed mandatory fees, require all-fee-inclusive advertised pricing, and mandate dual disclosure of percentage-based taxes and fees in dollar terms at purchase. The practical effect would be to regulate pricing and advertising practices for lodging providers, booking platforms, and time share sellers, while giving consumers clearer total-price information before completing a transaction.
Sentiment
The bill’s findings and framing indicate strong support for consumer transparency and skepticism toward hidden fees. Although there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, the bill’s language aligns with broader national efforts to curb junk fees and suggests a generally favorable policy posture toward disclosure requirements. The measure is presented as a consumer-protection initiative rather than a revenue or industry-expansion bill.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely to be the burden the bill places on transient accommodation operators and booking intermediaries, who may argue that the disclosure rules are administratively difficult or could limit pricing flexibility. Supporters, by contrast, would emphasize consumer protection, price transparency, and fairness in the marketplace. The bill’s focus on mandatory upfront disclosure suggests tension between consumer advocates seeking all-in pricing and businesses that rely on separate fees or percentage-based charges.