AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 3, Part 19 and Title 47, Chapter 18, relative to consumer protection.
HB2233, titled the “Junk Fee Prevention Act,” would add a new consumer-protection section to Tennessee law aimed at curbing deceptive pricing practices and hidden mandatory fees. Beginning July 1, 2027, businesses selling or leasing goods or services to consumers would be prohibited from advertising a price without clearly and conspicuously displaying the total price, including all mandatory fees, and from using misleading or less prominent disclosures about fees, charges, or subtotals. The bill also bars post-selection price increases, excessive early-termination charges, and certain fees or conditions tied to automatic-renewal contracts.
The bill defines key terms such as consumer, goods, services, transaction, and mandatory fee, and it expressly excludes taxes, duties, customs, and certain disclosed delivery fees from its pricing rules. It also creates a limited defense for bona fide errors if the business used reasonable procedures to avoid the mistake and refunds the overcharge within 30 days after notice. A violation of the new section would be treated as a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977, making it an unfair or deceptive act or practice subject to existing penalties and remedies. The commissioner of revenue would also be required to develop and implement a public notice campaign to educate consumers about the new requirements.
The bill’s impact would be broad across Tennessee’s consumer marketplace, affecting industries where add-on fees are common, including banking, travel, ticketing, hospitality, delivery, ride sharing, car rentals, and consumer finance. It would amend Title 47, Chapter 18, Part 1, and add a new violation to the list of deceptive practices under Tennessee’s consumer protection law. The measure would also require state outreach efforts before the pricing rules take effect, with the act itself taking effect July 1, 2026, and the substantive pricing restrictions beginning July 1, 2027.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of consumer transparency and anti-deception goals. The findings section frames junk fees as harmful to consumers, competition, and price clarity, and as contributing to inflation and confusion in the marketplace. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main points of contention likely center on how broadly the total-price disclosure rule would apply, what qualifies as a mandatory fee, and whether the restrictions could impose compliance burdens on businesses that rely on layered pricing or third-party sales platforms. Another possible issue is the treatment of early-termination fees and automatic-renewal contracts, which may affect subscription-based services and long-term consumer agreements. Because no discussion or vote record was included, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from recorded legislative debate.
HB2233 would amend Tennessee’s consumer protection statutes by creating a new prohibition on deceptive pricing and hidden mandatory fees, and by making violations enforceable under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. It would require businesses to disclose total prices up front, regulate fee presentation and post-selection price changes, and add a new enumerated unfair or deceptive practice to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(b). The bill would also direct the commissioner of revenue to run a public notice campaign before the pricing rules take effect.
The bill is framed in strongly pro-consumer terms, with findings emphasizing transparency, competition, and protection against hidden charges. Based on the text alone, the measure appears intended to address widespread frustration with junk fees and deceptive pricing. No committee discussion or vote data were provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s supportive framing.
Potential contention points include the scope of the total-price disclosure requirement, the definition of mandatory fees, and whether the bill would be burdensome for businesses that use third-party sellers, dynamic pricing, or bundled service charges. The early-termination and automatic-renewal provisions may also draw scrutiny from subscription and contract-based industries. Because no transcripts or votes were included, there is no direct record of which lawmakers or stakeholders raised these concerns.