SB922 creates a new subtitle in Maryland’s Business Regulation Article governing “travel services” and requires certain sellers of travel and independent agents to provide annual proof of financial security to the Department of Labor. The bill defines who is covered, generally including businesses that arrange or sell travel reservations, transportation tickets, lodging, car rentals, or sightseeing tours and that receive payment directly from the purchaser or the ultimate travel supplier, while excluding air carriers, ocean carriers, and certain lodging establishments acting only in limited circumstances.
The bill requires annual filings, including evidence of financial security, a list of affiliated independent agents, and a $300 filing fee. Covered entities must also file an addendum if there is a material change in financial security during the year. The required financial security is generally a surety or cash performance bond scaled to in-state gross income, with alternative compliance options such as a certificate of deposit, irrevocable letter of credit, professional liability/errors and omissions insurance, or certain deposits of cash, securities, guarantees, or property interests. The protections are intended to benefit consumers who suffer losses from fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, financial failure, or non-delivery of travel services.
SB922 also directs the Division of Consumer Protection and the Department of Labor to give notice of the new requirements and enforce them. Violations are criminal misdemeanors, with fines up to $10,000 for an individual’s first offense and up to $50,000 for repeat offenses; business entities face fines up to $50,000 for a first offense and up to $100,000 for repeat offenses. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new regulatory and consumer-protection framework for travel sellers operating in Maryland, imposing licensing-like financial security obligations and enforcement penalties where none are described in the bill text. It would affect travel agencies, online or in-state travel sellers, independent agents, and consumers purchasing travel services, while leaving certain transportation and lodging providers outside the new subtitle.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal sentiment can be drawn from hearings or roll calls. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears consumer-protective and aimed at preventing losses from failed or fraudulent travel businesses, but it also imposes new compliance costs and bonding requirements on the travel industry. Potential points of contention would likely include the size of the required bonds or alternative security, the scope of who qualifies as a seller of travel, and whether the filing fee and criminal penalties are too burdensome for smaller businesses or independent agents.
The bill would add Subtitle 22, “Travel Services,” to the Business Regulation Article and create a new state regulatory scheme for sellers of travel and independent agents. It requires annual registration-style filings, proof of financial security, and disclosure of affiliated agents, and it authorizes enforcement by the Division of Consumer Protection and the Department of Labor. It also establishes misdemeanor penalties and fines for violations, thereby expanding state oversight of travel-related consumer transactions and creating a statutory remedy fund-like protection for harmed customers.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or floor action. On its face, the bill reflects a consumer-protection approach that would likely be viewed favorably by travelers and regulators because it seeks to reduce losses from fraud or business failure. At the same time, the bill would likely draw concern from travel businesses and independent agents because it adds annual filing obligations, bonding or insurance requirements, and significant penalties for noncompliance.
The most likely points of contention are the financial security thresholds, the $300 annual filing fee, and the breadth of the definition of “seller of travel,” especially for smaller agencies, online intermediaries, and independent agents. Businesses may object to the cost and administrative burden of bonds, insurance, or deposits, while consumer advocates may support those requirements as necessary to protect prepaid travel purchases. Another possible issue is the criminal penalty structure, which is relatively severe for repeat violations and could be viewed as either a strong deterrent or an excessive enforcement tool.