S00363, the “New York junk fee prevention act,” would require businesses that sell or lease goods and services directly to consumers in New York to disclose the full “total price” up front whenever pricing information is advertised or offered. The bill defines “mandatory fees” broadly to include charges that are required, unavoidable, expected to be included, or added by default, while excluding certain taxes, government-imposed fees, delivery charges disclosed in advance, refundable pre-authorization amounts, and optional add-ons. It also requires that any taxes or other excluded governmental charges be disclosed before payment is accepted, and that all price disclosures be clear, conspicuous, and not misleading.
The bill creates enforcement tools for the attorney general and private parties. The attorney general may seek injunctions without proving that consumers were actually misled or harmed, and the attorney general or an adversely affected person may recover actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500 per unintentional violation or $1,000 per intentional, knowing, or willful violation, plus costs and attorneys’ fees. It also voids waivers of the section’s protections and exempts actions from pre-dispute arbitration clauses. The law would take effect on January 1 following enactment.
The bill would amend the General Business Law by adding a new section 396-yy, and it would affect a wide range of sellers, advertisers, and service providers operating in New York. It includes specific compliance carveouts and safe harbors for broadband internet access service, cable service, certain financial transactions already governed by federal disclosure laws, credit-card surcharges compliant with existing state notice rules, food service establishments disclosing mandatory gratuity percentages, variable-price services, auctions, multiple-price advertisements, short-term lodging, entities covered by arts and cultural affairs law provisions, and air transportation. In practical terms, it would push businesses toward all-in pricing and reduce the use of hidden or surprise fees in consumer advertising.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s history is strongly favorable. The Senate Consumer Protection Committee approved it unanimously in the recorded committee vote, and the Senate floor passed it with a substantial majority, indicating broad support for the bill’s consumer-protection goals. The repeated committee approval in the provided history also suggests continued legislative backing.
The main points of contention are likely to center on compliance burden, scope, and overlap with existing federal or state disclosure regimes rather than on the concept of price transparency itself. The bill anticipates these concerns by carving out several industries and transactions already subject to separate rules, including broadband, cable, financial services, credit card surcharges, lodging, and air travel. Those exemptions suggest that lawmakers were balancing consumer transparency against regulated industries’ existing disclosure obligations and the practical difficulty of applying a one-size-fits-all rule to all pricing models.
The bill would add a new consumer-protection provision to the General Business Law requiring all-in pricing disclosures for advertised goods and services, thereby changing how businesses present prices to New York consumers. It would create new statutory duties for sellers and advertisers, authorize attorney general enforcement and private lawsuits, and establish statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief for violations. It also preserves or defers to several existing federal and state disclosure frameworks through targeted exemptions and compliance safe harbors.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan or at least broad chamber support based on the recorded votes, with unanimous committee approval and a strong Senate floor majority. The discussion context provided does not include transcript debate, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed positively as a consumer transparency and anti-junk-fee reform. The lack of recorded opposition in committee and the sizable final passage margin indicate generally favorable sentiment.
The likely contention concerns how far the bill should reach and whether its disclosure requirements duplicate or conflict with existing rules. Businesses in sectors with variable pricing, bundled services, or separate federal disclosure regimes may view the bill as adding compliance costs or litigation risk, while consumer advocates would likely support the requirement to show the full price up front. The bill’s detailed exemptions for broadband, cable, financial services, credit card surcharges, food service gratuities, lodging, auctions, and air transportation indicate that these sectors were the most likely to raise concerns or require special treatment.