Requesting The Department Of Commerce And Consumer Affairs To Study Barriers To Exiting Timeshare Ownership In Hawaii And To Recommend Consumer Protection Measures.
H.R. 154 is a House Resolution requesting the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) to study barriers that prevent consumers from exiting timeshare ownership in Hawaii and to recommend consumer protection measures. The resolution describes timeshare ownership as a significant part of Hawaii’s tourism and real estate economy, but notes that many owners face ongoing maintenance fees, contractual obligations, and difficulty transferring or terminating their interests. It also highlights concerns about third-party timeshare exit companies that charge upfront fees, make promises about cancellation or resale, and often fail to deliver meaningful results.
The requested study would examine consumer complaints involving timeshare ownership, resale, and exit services; contractual terms that make termination or transfer difficult; the practices of timeshare exit companies, including fees and success rates; current Hawaii consumer protections and enforcement gaps; and best practices from other states. DCCA would then report findings and recommendations, including any proposed legislation, to the Legislature before the 2027 Regular Session. The resolution is investigative and advisory rather than regulatory, but it is intended to lay the groundwork for future consumer protection legislation affecting timeshare developers, resale entities, and exit-service providers.
Because H.R. 154 is a resolution, it does not itself amend Hawaii statutes or create new legal duties. Its practical impact is to direct attention to timeshare consumer protection issues and to request a state agency study that could inform later legislation. If the study leads to statutory changes, those could affect disclosure requirements, rescission periods, developer obligations, licensing or bonding standards for exit companies, and enforcement authority over deceptive practices in the timeshare market.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly consumer-protective and skeptical of current timeshare exit practices. The bill frames the issue as one of financial harm, especially for kupuna, fixed-income households, and families facing unexpected life changes, and it emphasizes that existing protections may be inadequate. No committee testimony or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded opposition or formal legislative debate in the available materials.
The main points of contention implied by the resolution are the adequacy of Hawaii’s current rescission and disclosure rules, the extent to which timeshare owners should be able to exit long-term contracts, and whether third-party exit companies should face stronger regulation such as licensing, bonding, or stricter oversight. Another likely area of dispute is how far consumer protections should go without unduly affecting the timeshare industry, which the resolution recognizes as part of Hawaii’s tourism and real estate economy. The resolution itself does not identify specific opponents, but the concerns it raises suggest tension between consumer advocates, timeshare owners, developers, and exit-service businesses.