HB 955, the North Carolina Junk Fee Prevention Act, would create a new Article in Chapter 66 to regulate how certain businesses advertise and charge fees. The bill focuses on “hidden,” mandatory, excessive, or deceptive fees and requires covered entities to display the total price of a good or service clearly and conspicuously at the first point a price is shown, including all mandatory fees. It also requires clear disclosure of refund or guarantee policies and mandates that refunds include mandatory fees. For covered services such as internet, voice, mobile, and video services, the bill would prohibit excessive or unreasonable early-termination charges, while still allowing charges for unreturned rental equipment or outstanding device costs.
The bill also revises North Carolina’s ticket price transparency law in G.S. 75-44. It would require ticket sellers, resellers, and secondary ticket exchanges to disclose the full ticket price, mandatory fees, and maximum order-processing fees up front, prevent price increases during a ticketing session except for limited permitted charges, and require advance disclosure of the total number of tickets offered. It would also require notice when a seller does not yet possess the ticket and a full refund if the ticket cannot be delivered in time. In addition, the bill repeals G.S. 14-344 and makes violations of the new article and the revised ticket law unfair or deceptive trade practices, enforceable by the Attorney General with civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. The act would take effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is consumer-protection oriented, with the measure designed to increase price transparency and curb surprise charges across lodging, telecommunications, and ticketing markets. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the available record. The bill’s structure suggests a strong regulatory approach, giving the Attorney General rulemaking and enforcement authority and tying violations to the state’s unfair trade practices law.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of the Attorney General’s authority, the breadth of the definition of covered entities and covered services, and the practical impact on businesses that rely on fees, processing charges, or dynamic pricing. Ticket sellers and resellers may object to the disclosure and refund requirements, while telecommunications and lodging providers may view the limits on mandatory fees and early-termination charges as burdensome. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill protects consumers from misleading advertised prices and unexpected add-on charges.
HB 955 would add a new consumer-protection article to Chapter 66 and amend G.S. 75-44, expanding state regulation of pricing disclosures for short-term lodging, telecommunications and bundled services, and ticket sales/resales. It would also repeal G.S. 14-344, create new disclosure and refund obligations, authorize Attorney General rulemaking and enforcement, impose civil penalties, and classify violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices under G.S. 75-1.1, thereby giving affected consumers and the state stronger remedies against fee-related misconduct.
The bill appears to be framed as a pro-consumer transparency measure aimed at eliminating junk fees and surprise charges. No committee testimony or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or support to summarize from legislative debate. Based on the text alone, the bill’s tone is regulatory and consumer-protective, with enforcement tools intended to ensure compliance.
Likely areas of contention include whether the bill goes too far in defining mandatory fees and giving the Attorney General discretion to identify additional covered entities or fees, and whether the restrictions on ticketing, lodging, and communications providers would increase compliance costs or interfere with business pricing models. Ticket issuers, resellers, and service providers may object to the up-front total-price and refund requirements, while consumer advocates would likely support the bill’s limits on hidden fees, deceptive pricing, and excessive early-termination charges.