Virginia Consumer Protection Act; prohibited practices, mandatory fees or surcharges disclosure.
SB1212 expands the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to require more transparent pricing and to add a new chapter on mandatory fees or surcharges. The bill creates a general rule that suppliers may not advertise or display a price for goods or services without clearly and conspicuously showing the total price, including mandatory fees or surcharges, subject to specified exceptions. It also adds special disclosure rules for restaurants, hotels, auctions, price-variable suppliers, broadband providers, cable operators, satellite providers, live-event ticket sellers, and food delivery platforms.
The bill also adds a new food delivery platform chapter requiring platforms to have express authorization from restaurants before submitting orders or arranging delivery, and to disclose additional fees at the point of selection and again before checkout in a subtotal itemization. The new chapter defines key terms such as mandatory fees or surcharges, price-variable supplier, and food delivery platform, and it provides that violations are enforced through the Virginia Consumer Protection Act’s existing remedies and penalties. The bill further amends the VCPA’s prohibited practices list to make violations of the new mandatory-fee chapter an unlawful practice, and it updates the statute to reflect the new chapter numbering and related cross-references.
SB1212 changes Virginia consumer law by adding a broad price-disclosure requirement and by making noncompliance a prohibited practice under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. It affects a wide range of businesses that advertise prices to consumers, especially restaurants, hotels, ticket sellers, delivery platforms, and service providers with variable pricing or mandatory add-on charges. The bill also creates new compliance obligations for food delivery platforms, including restaurant authorization and clearer fee disclosure, and it preserves exemptions for certain regulated industries and federally preempted areas.
The bill appears to have been generally supported, but not unanimously. It passed the Senate overwhelmingly and later received enough support in the House to pass, though the House vote was much closer, indicating more division there. The substitute versions and the final Senate vote on the Governor’s recommendation suggest the measure remained politically active and somewhat contested even after passage. Overall, the voting history points to broad agreement on the goal of price transparency, with more mixed views on the scope and details of the disclosure mandates.
The main points of contention likely centered on how far the bill goes in regulating advertised prices and mandatory fees, and whether the new disclosure rules impose burdens on businesses. Businesses with variable pricing models, restaurants and hotels that use automatic gratuities, and platforms that add service or delivery fees are the most directly affected and may have concerns about compliance costs and operational flexibility. The House’s narrower margin suggests more disagreement over the breadth of the requirements, while the Senate’s strong support indicates less resistance to the consumer-protection rationale. The Governor’s recommendation and the Senate’s rejection of it also show that some aspect of the final form remained disputed.