SB50 amends Hawaii’s deceptive trade practices law to make it an unfair or deceptive practice to advertise, display, or offer a price for goods or services without including all mandatory fees or charges, with limited exceptions. The bill keeps existing exceptions for government-imposed taxes or fees and for postage or carriage charges that are reasonably and actually incurred to ship a physical good to the consumer. It also preserves the current rule that a complainant does not need to prove competition between the parties or actual confusion to bring a claim under the chapter.
The bill also updates the application section of the deceptive trade practices statute to clarify that the new pricing rule does not apply to broadband internet access service providers that comply with federal broadband consumer label requirements. The measure is framed as a consumer protection and false advertising bill, and the report title specifically references hidden fees and the motor vehicle rental industry, suggesting an intent to address so-called “drip pricing” or other add-on fee practices in consumer advertising.
Impact
SB50 would amend sections 481A-3 and 481A-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, expanding the list of deceptive trade practices to cover advertised prices that omit mandatory fees or charges. This would give consumers and enforcement authorities a clearer statutory basis to challenge incomplete price advertising across goods and services, while leaving intact existing exceptions for taxes, shipping-related charges, and certain broadband disclosures governed by federal rules. The bill would not alter the broader structure of Hawaii’s deceptive trade practices law, but it would broaden its reach to pricing transparency and likely affect retailers, service providers, and industries that advertise base prices with required add-ons.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was received favorably in committee, passing the Senate Transportation and Culture and the Arts committee 4-0 with amendments. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the unanimous vote. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a consumer-protection measure with broad appeal, especially because it targets hidden fees and price transparency rather than creating a new regulatory regime.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the new pricing disclosure requirement: businesses that rely on base-price advertising with mandatory add-on fees may view the bill as burdensome or as requiring changes to marketing and checkout practices. The motor vehicle rental industry is specifically referenced in the report title, suggesting that sector may be a focus of concern because of common fee structures. Another possible issue is the interaction with federal broadband labeling rules, which the bill addresses by carving out compliant broadband providers from the new prohibition. No explicit opposition is shown in the available materials, but the fee-inclusion requirement is the provision most likely to draw industry scrutiny.