CONSUMERS: Provides with respect to hidden fees charged to consumers
HB 617 creates a new unfair trade practice rule aimed at “hidden fees” in consumer pricing. It requires suppliers advertising or displaying a price for goods or services to clearly and conspicuously show the total price, including any mandatory fees or surcharges. The bill defines key terms such as “good,” “supplier,” and “price-variable supplier,” and it specifically addresses businesses whose final price depends on consumer choices, distance, or time, such as food delivery and ride-share platforms.
The bill also sets out special disclosure rules for certain sectors. Restaurants and hotels must disclose automatic gratuities or mandatory service fees in pricing offers or advertisements. Auction sellers must disclose mandatory fees and note that the final cost may vary. Price-variable suppliers must disclose the factors affecting final price, any mandatory fees or surcharges, and that service costs may vary. The bill also recognizes compliance through existing federal or state disclosure regimes for broadband internet, telecommunications, cable, satellite TV, live-event ticket sellers, and Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission licensees. It exempts real estate and real-estate settlement services from the new requirements.
HB 617 adds R.S. 51:1429.1 to Louisiana’s unfair trade practices law, expanding consumer protection rules around advertised pricing and fee disclosure. It would require many businesses to change how they present prices to consumers, with the practical effect of reducing drip pricing and making mandatory charges visible up front. At the same time, it preserves compliance for businesses already subject to comparable federal disclosure rules and car dealers following Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission advertising regulations, while carving out a broad exemption for real estate and related transaction services.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum in the House, where it passed final passage by margins of 58-36, 59-35, and 60-34 on the same date, suggesting some procedural recounting or multiple recorded votes but consistent majority support. The available record shows no committee transcript debate, so the public discussion reflected in the materials is limited. Overall, the bill’s consumer-protection framing and focus on price transparency suggest broad support among proponents, with opposition likely centered on compliance burdens and the scope of the disclosure mandate.
The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the disclosure requirement and which industries should be exempt or deemed already compliant. Businesses that rely on variable pricing, mandatory service charges, or bundled fees may view the bill as burdensome or duplicative, especially if they already comply with federal rules. The explicit exemptions and compliance carve-outs for broadband, telecom, cable, satellite, live-event tickets, motor vehicle dealers, and real estate indicate that industry-specific treatment was a significant issue in drafting and amendment, with stakeholders likely seeking to avoid overlapping regulation.