Virginia Consumer Protection Act; prohibited practices, mandatory fees or surcharges disclosure.
HB2515 expands the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to require clearer disclosure of mandatory fees and surcharges in consumer pricing. The bill creates a new Chapter 58 in Title 59.1, titled “Mandatory Fees or Surcharges,” and generally requires suppliers advertising or displaying a price for goods or services to show the total price up front, including mandatory fees or surcharges, with certain exceptions. It also adds specific disclosure rules for restaurants, hotels, price-variable suppliers, food delivery platforms, and certain regulated industries such as broadband, cable, satellite, live-event ticketing, and some utility and settlement-service transactions.
The bill also amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act’s list of prohibited practices to make violations of the new chapter an unlawful practice under the Act. In addition, it updates food delivery platform rules to require restaurant authorization before submitting orders or arranging delivery, and to require disclosure of platform fees and subtotal information before checkout. The legislation is aimed at preventing “drip pricing” and improving price transparency for consumers by ensuring that mandatory charges are included in advertised prices or clearly disclosed before purchase.
HB2515 changes Virginia law by adding a new consumer-protection chapter and by expanding the list of practices treated as violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Businesses covered by the bill must revise advertising, checkout, and disclosure practices to show total prices or otherwise provide clear and conspicuous fee disclosures. The law specifically affects food delivery platforms, restaurants, hotels, auction sellers, broadband and cable providers, live-event ticket sellers, and other suppliers subject to consumer pricing rules, while carving out several categories such as motor vehicle dealer fees, utilities, settlement services, air transportation, and federally preempted conduct.
The bill appears to have been generally supported, but not without partisan or policy division. It advanced through committee and passed both chambers, including a 25-15 Senate vote, suggesting meaningful support for stronger price-transparency rules. At the same time, the narrower committee margins and the House’s later rejection of the Governor’s recommendation indicate that the bill remained politically contested even after passage, likely reflecting disagreement over the scope of the disclosure requirements and the burden on businesses.
The main point of contention is the breadth of the mandatory-fee disclosure mandate and which industries should be exempt. Businesses in pricing-sensitive sectors may object to the requirement to advertise total prices inclusive of all mandatory fees, especially where prices vary by consumer choice, distance, time, or service conditions. Food delivery platforms and restaurants are directly affected by the new subtotal and fee-disclosure rules, and regulated industries such as broadband, cable, satellite, utilities, and ticketing receive tailored compliance provisions. The bill also raises questions about how far state law should go before federal preemption or industry-specific pricing rules limit its reach.