The FTC’s $35 million settlement with travel-booking platform Hopper centers on allegedly misleading fees, default selections, and claims about optional services.
The case shows that regulators are examining not only what businesses disclose, but how pricing and choices are presented throughout the purchasing process.
Businesses that sell online should review their checkout design, pricing claims, and methods for obtaining consumer consent.
Businesses that market products or services online should take note of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recent enforcement action against Hopper, one of the nation’s most recognizable travel booking platforms. While the allegations involve a travel application, the legal principles extend far beyond the travel industry. The case serves as another reminder that regulators are increasingly scrutinizing online sales practices, particularly where businesses rely on interface design, automatic selections, or incomplete pricing disclosures to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
For companies operating e-commerce platforms, subscription services, software products, or mobile applications, this matter illustrates that pricing transparency has evolved from a best practice into an active enforcement priority.
The FTC filed a complaint against Canadian-based Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts subsidiary, Hopper (USA) Inc., alleging that the companies violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The agency also alleged violations of the FTC’s recently effective Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule with respect to certain lodging transactions.
According to the complaint, consumers using the Hopper application were presented with what appeared to be the “total price” of a travel booking. However, the FTC alleged that this amount excluded additional charges for “Tip” and “VIP Support” services. Although Hopper characterized these charges as optional, the complaint alleges that they were automatically selected by default and disclosed only through interface elements that many consumers would not reasonably notice before completing their purchase.
The FTC further alleged that consumers frequently believed these fees were mandatory and did not knowingly consent to paying them. According to the Commission, these practices generated millions of dollars in additional revenue while creating a misleading impression of the actual purchase price.
The complaint also cites internal company communications in which employees reportedly expressed concerns about whether aspects of the purchasing process could be perceived as misleading. In addition, the FTC alleged that internal testing demonstrated that consumers would frequently decline the additional services if they were presented more clearly and not pre-selected.
The enforcement action extended beyond pricing disclosures.
The FTC alleged that Hopper marketed its paid “VIP Support” service as providing expedited customer service, suggesting that purchasers would receive immediate or near-immediate assistance. According to the complaint, many customers instead experienced lengthy delays or were unable to reach support personnel at all.
Similarly, the agency challenged Hopper's marketing of its “Price Freeze” (also known as “Hold the Room”) product. Hopper represented that consumers could preserve an advertised travel price for a specified period and that the fee paid for the service would ultimately be credited toward the final booking.
The FTC alleged that these representations omitted material limitations, including restrictions on the amount of price protection available, circumstances in which the booking would no longer qualify, and instances where the Price Freeze fee was not actually applied toward the purchase price as consumers were led to believe.
Collectively, the FTC alleged that these omissions and representations materially affected consumers’ purchasing decisions and therefore constituted deceptive business practices.
Without admitting liability, Hopper agreed to resolve the matter through a proposed settlement that includes significant monetary and injunctive relief.
Among the principal terms are:
Although settlements of this nature do not constitute findings of liability, they nevertheless provide important insight into the FTC's current enforcement priorities and the agency’s interpretation of federal consumer protection laws.
The Hopper matter primarily arises under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”
A business practice may be considered deceptive if a representation, omission, or course of conduct is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer regarding a material aspect of a transaction. Importantly, the FTC evaluates the overall impression created by a transaction, not merely whether technically accurate information appears somewhere within the purchasing process.
The complaint also invokes the FTC’s Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule, which became effective in 2025. The rule is designed to combat so-called “junk fees” by requiring businesses to present consumers with accurate total pricing and prohibiting the concealment or misrepresentation of mandatory charges. While the rule presently applies to certain industries, it reflects a broader regulatory movement toward greater transparency in digital commerce.
Many modern businesses utilize digital design techniques intended to improve conversion rates, including pre-selected options, layered disclosures, bundled service offerings, and streamlined checkout experiences. While these practices are not inherently unlawful, they can create legal exposure if consumers are misled regarding pricing, optional services, or the nature of their consent.
Businesses should carefully review whether:
The FTC has consistently demonstrated that burying important pricing information within lengthy disclosures, expandable menus, or less prominent portions of an application interface may not satisfy federal consumer protection requirements.
The Hopper settlement reflects a broader trend in consumer-protection enforcement. Regulators are increasingly focused not only on what businesses disclose, but also on how consumers experience the purchasing process. User interface design, checkout flow, pricing presentation, and default selections have become central components of regulatory compliance.
Companies that rely heavily on digital sales platforms should view this case as an opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of their customer experience from both a legal and compliance perspective. Ensuring that pricing is transparent, optional services require meaningful consent, and advertising accurately reflects the services delivered can significantly reduce regulatory risk while strengthening consumer trust.
As federal and state regulators continue to focus on deceptive online pricing practices, businesses that proactively prioritize transparency will be better positioned to avoid costly investigations, enforcement actions, and reputational harm.
Michael Hackett is a transactional attorney who advises businesses on corporate law, commercial contracts, e-commerce, data security, financing, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate governance. He represents startups, growth-stage companies, investors, and small and midsize businesses across a range of industries.