UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Agency decision
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 1 of 39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Case No. 26-cv-13058
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, MONETARY
JUDGMENT, AND OTHER
RELIEF
v.
HOPPER (USA), INC., a corporation, and
HOPPER INC., a corporation,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), for its Complaint
alleges:
1.
The FTC brings this action for Defendants’ violations of Section 5(a) of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and the Commission’s Rule on
Unfair or Deceptive Fees (“Fees Rule”), 16 C.F.R. pt. 464. For these violations, the FTC seeks
relief, including a permanent injunction, monetary relief, and other relief, pursuant to Sections
13(b) and 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 53(b), 57b, and the Fees Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 464.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
2.
Defendants Hopper (USA), Inc. and Hopper Inc. (together, “Defendants”) operate
mobile apps that, among other things, allow consumers to book airfare, short-term rentals
(including hotel rooms and vacation homes), and rental cars. Yet, as Defendants’ own internal
documents make clear, the real money for Defendants comes not from travel bookings, but rather
from deceiving consumers through misrepresentations, bait-and-switch practices, and hidden
fees.
1
Case 1:26-cv-13058
3.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 2 of 39
Indeed, Defendants’ business practices have been so rife with deception that
Defendants’ own employees have repeatedly raised the alarm. For example, one employee
complained that “the problem here is that we’re tricking users.” Another employee “forgot to
turn off the toggle” for the hidden fees while making a purchase on Defendants’ app and
complained that they “felt ‘cheated’ by Hopper.”
4.
Despite these and other complaints, including numerous consumer complaints,
Defendants refused to make changes to comply with the law.
5.
Defendants freely acknowledge that their bottom line critically depends on their
unlawful conduct. For example, in response to concerns expressed by one employee that the
companies were tricking consumers, Defendants internally acknowledged that they needed the
hidden Tip fee because it was a “meaningful percentage of our gross profit” and needed the
hidden VIP Support fee because it was “literally 100% of the gross profit that our air business
derives.” Defendants continued their illegal practices because complying with the law would cost
them profit.
6.
Through their illegal practices, Defendants have caused consumers tens of
millions of dollars in harm.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a),
1345, and 1355.
8.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(2),
(c)(3), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
PLAINTIFF
9.
The FTC is an agency of the United States Government created by the FTC Act,
which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court civil action by its own attorneys.
2
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 3 of 39
15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. The FTC enforces Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which
prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC further
enforces the Fees Rule, 16 C.F.R. pt. 464, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices involving
fees or charges for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, including: (a) failing to disclose,
every place price is displayed, the “total price” (i.e., the maximum total of all fees a consumer
must pay for any good or service and any mandatory ancillary good or service, with limited
exceptions); (b) failing to disclose the nature, purpose, and amount of fees or charges and the
identity of goods or services for which fees are imposed; and (c) misrepresenting the nature,
purpose, amount, and refundability of fees or charges and the identity of the good or service for
which a fee is imposed.
DEFENDANTS
10.
Defendant Hopper (USA), Inc. (“Hopper (USA)”) is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business at 265 Franklin Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Hopper (USA) is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Hopper Inc. Hopper (USA) transacts or has transacted
business in this District and throughout the United States. At all times relevant to this Complaint,
acting alone or in concert with others, Hopper (USA) has advertised, marketed, distributed, or
sold its products and services to consumers throughout the United States.
11.
Defendant Hopper Inc. is a closely held Canadian corporation with its registered
office at 5795 Ave. de Gaspé, Montreal, Quebec. Hopper Inc. is the sole owner of Hopper
(USA). Hopper Inc. transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the
United States. At all times relevant to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others,
Hopper Inc. has advertised, marketed, distributed, or sold its products and services to consumers
throughout the United States.
3
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 4 of 39
COMMON ENTERPRISE
12.
Defendants have operated as a common enterprise while engaging in the unfair
and deceptive acts and practices and other violations of law alleged below. Defendants have
conducted the business practices described below as an integrated business through interrelated
companies that have common officers, directors, managers, and employees; unified advertising;
and shared business functions such as a shared customer relations management database and
shared customer service agents. Because Defendants have operated as a common enterprise, each
of them is liable for the acts and practices alleged below.
COMMERCE
13.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants have maintained a substantial
course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 44.
DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
A. DEFENDANTS OFFER BOOKING SERVICES FOR THIRDPARTY TRAVEL AND THEIR OWN ADD-ON TRAVEL
PRODUCTS
14.
Defendants offer booking services for third-party travel through their Hopper apps
and, to a limited extent, on their website.
15.
Defendants’ initial offering on the Hopper apps, in 2015, was an airfare price
prediction service. Later that year, Defendants began offering booking services for air travel.
Defendants then added booking services for other types of travel through the Hopper apps,
including hotel stays in 2019, car rentals in 2020, and vacation home stays in 2022.
16.
In connection with marketing and selling travel bookings, Defendants also market
and sell their own add-on travel products, including Price Freeze and VIP Support. These add-on
products purport to provide consumers with travel flexibility, or fast, timely customer service.
4
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 5 of 39
17.
Defendants began marketing and selling Price Freeze in 2019 and VIP Support in
18.
Defendants charge variable fees for Price Freeze and VIP Support that are based
2020.
on factors such as the type and cost of the underlying travel booking. For example, the fees for
Price Freeze have been based on the cost of the underlying booking. The fees for VIP Support
have ranged from $10–$42 for air travel, $9–$25 for hotel stays, and $9 for car rentals.
B. DEFENDANTS HAVE DECEPTIVELY HIDDEN AND
UNFAIRLY CHARGED CONSUMERS FOR FEES WITHOUT
CONSUMERS’ EXPRESS INFORMED CONSENT
Defendants Deceptively Advertise That Hopper’s Prices Have No Hidden Fees
and Include All Fees
19.
To induce consumers to use their travel booking services, Defendants have
disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements that contain the following statements
and depictions, among others:
Figure 1 – Hopper Website Ad for Hopper’s Travel Booking Services
[dated Apr. 13, 2026; representing: “Hopper is completely free to download and doesn’t
have any hidden fees or gotcha charges.”]
5
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 6 of 39
Figure 2 – Hopper Mobile Ad
[dated June 8, 2021; representing: “Hopper – the travel app with no hidden fees”]
Figure 3 – Hopper Digital Ad
[dated Apr. 4, 2024; representing: “No hidden fees . . . 100% free”]
20.
Defendants have also routinely advertised Hopper’s travel booking services
online using the taglines “No Hidden Fees on Hopper,” “No Hidden Fees,” “Zero Hidden Fees,”
“no more hidden fees,” “Compare car rentals without the hidden fees. Just transparent pricing,”
6
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 7 of 39
and “Transparent Pricing Always,” including in search advertising, Android and iOS app store
advertising campaigns, and other digital advertising campaigns on Google, Facebook, TikTok,
Snapchat, Twitter, Pinterest, and other channels.
21.
In a similar vein, Defendants have represented that their “prices include all fees”:
Figure 4 – Hopper In-App Hotel Stay Ad
[dated July 15, 2025; red oval added; representing: “Prices include all fees”]
Defendants Have Misrepresented the True Cost of Their Services By Adding Hidden Fees and
Charging Consumers Those Fees Without Consumers’ Express Informed Consent
22.
Contrary to Defendants’ representations that Hopper’s prices have no hidden fees
or “gotcha” charges and include all fees, Defendants have routinely charged consumers hidden or
7
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 8 of 39
“gotcha” fees. Further, these fees have not been included in advertised prices. Thus, contrary to
Defendants’ representations, the advertised prices do not “include all fees.”
23.
Defendants have charged consumers who book travel through Hopper hidden fees
without the consumers’ express informed consent. Specifically, Defendants have charged
consumers the “Tip” fee and for the VIP Support customer service product, both without
consumers’ express informed consent. These fees were hidden, preselected, and were not
included in advertised prices for Defendants’ air travel, rental car, and short-term lodging
bookings.
24.
For example, from 2020 to late 2023, consumers booking a flight on Defendants’
apps would view the following screens near the end of their transaction:
Figure 5 – Screenshots from Hopper App Airfare Purchase Flow
[dated Jan. 24, 2022; personal information redacted]
8
Case 1:26-cv-13058
25.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 9 of 39
On the Choose Payment screen (leftmost screenshot above), Defendants display
the “Total” price of the booking, here $997.85. After the consumer selects “Continue,”
Defendants display the Review Details screen (center screenshot). In the visible portion of the
Review Details screen, a consumer is told to “Swipe to Book Flight.” If a consumer does so,
Defendants send the booking to the third-party travel provider for completion, and the consumer
is shown the “Pack your bags!” screen (rightmost screenshot).
26.
However, a consumer who “Swipe[s] to Book Flight” without scrolling down
would unknowingly be charged more than the “Total” price because the consumer would also be
charged two hidden, preselected fees.
Figure 6 – Screenshots from Hopper App Airfare Purchase Flow
[dated Jan. 24, 2022; red ovals added; personal information redacted]
9
Case 1:26-cv-13058
27.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 10 of 39
Only if a consumer scrolled down further on the Review Details screen, as shown
in the “scrolled down” screenshot, would the consumer see that they were also agreeing to pay
$3.00 for an “optional” tip that had been preselected by Hopper. And only if the consumer
scrolled even further down, as shown in the rightmost screenshot, would the consumer see that
they were also agreeing to pay $25.00 for VIP Support that had also been preselected by Hopper.
28.
Not only did Defendants charge consumers for Tip and VIP Support without
clearly and conspicuously disclosing the fees throughout the Hopper travel booking purchase
flow, but Defendants also failed to provide any indication, much less an adequate disclosure, that
fees would be charged at all or that scrolling down was required to view them. Thus, given the
language of Defendants’ advertisements and their travel booking purchase flow, a reasonable
consumer who “Swipe[d] to Book” would have believed they were being charged for the
booking only, and not also being charged undisclosed Tip and VIP Support fees.
29.
Furthermore, in numerous instances, Defendants charged Tip and VIP Support
fees when the consumer swiped to book their travel, even if the underlying travel booking was
not confirmed by the third-party travel provider. And in numerous instances, Defendants did not
refund the Tip and VIP Support fees if the consumer later cancelled the booking, even when it
was cancelled within any free cancellation window permitted by the third-party travel provider,
or if the third-party travel provider cancelled the booking. Instead, Defendants retained the Tip
and VIP Support fees and refunded them only if consumers noticed and specifically requested a
refund of each fee by name.
30.
Defendants were well aware that consumers did not know they would be charged
the hidden fees. Consumers routinely complained to Defendants about the deceptive and unfair
10
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 11 of 39
nature of the Hopper travel booking purchase flow that resulted in the consumers being charged
hidden fees.
31.
Defendants’ customer relationship management database contains numerous
communications from 2021 through at least mid-2024 from consumers reflecting their surprise at
the amount they were charged when they “Swipe[d] to Book.” These consumers said they did not
know they would be charged Tip and VIP Support fees, they did not authorize the fees, and they
did not understand the nature or purpose of the fees. For example:
2021-01-29 Customer: “I did not intend to buy the VIP support. Honestly it feels like ya’ll
snuck that in on the final screen at the bottom and opted me in. I would like it
removed from both of the flights I just purchased, as well as the Tip that was
also auto opted in for”
2021-04-27 Customer over multiple messages: “Hi, I’ve ordered two flights and both
times a $14 fee was tacked on to my flight. I did not authorize these two
charges. I would like them removed. . . . Going forward, how do I stop this
from happening? Is it a button I should click?”
Hopper: “Good question. Before swiping to pay, there is an option for your
[sic] to opt\-out from Hopper Tip and VIP support fee.”
2021-12-31 Customer: “Hi I need you to refund the vip support and tip for hopper those
were unauthorized charges the [sic] were enabled green by default so I did not
accept the charges refund those immediately”
2022-10-26 Customer over multiple messages: “Remove and refund charge for VIP
service which I did not authorize . . . I did not authorize a Hopper tip either . . .
How did these charges occur . . . I have purchased with Hopper before but this
kind of default setting for the VIP service charge and tip is manipulative”
2022-11-09 Customer over multiple messages: “ I didn’t mean to get VIP support. Can i
get a refund for that? . . . One comment, on the app, you see the swipe to
purchase and it blocks the option for VIP service so i didn’t even see it as an
opy [sic] . . . Option”
2023-02-08 Customer over multiple messages: “I DID NOT request VIP support, but you
charged my credit card for it. . . . Also why was I charged for a TIP to Hopper.
I DID NOT authorize this or was told about it before I booked my room.”
11
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 12 of 39
2023-02-09 Customer: “I am extremely frustrated because I was charged $25 for ‘VIP
Support’ when finishing up my flight booking, and this was a charge I did not
see. The app allowed me to click through to ‘confirm payment”’ without
requiring me to scroll down to the bottom of the screen. If I had been blocked
from paying until I saw that purchasing VIP support was opted in to by
default, I would not have purchased it”
2023-06-26 Customer: “Could you kindly provide an explanation regarding the purpose of
the ‘tip’ mentioned on the receipt? I have no recollection of authorizing or
purchasing this tip, but I have noticed it on the receipt since you brought it to
my attention. I presume that the application has an automatic default setting to
include the hopper tip?”
2023-10-01 Customer: “i was also charged five dollars for a tip and $15 for VIP support?
Those are hidden fees that I had no idea I was being charged!”
2024-02-13 Customer: “As I asked earlier, I have a one dollar charge on my company
credit card. In addition to the flight charge. What is that charge for?”
*****
Hopper: “I have observed that **$1** was charged for Tip. . . .”
Customer over multiple messages: “So is it a service fee? Why was I
charged on top of the price quoted?”
Hopper: “No, It is not a service fee. Upon checking that you have tipped
Hopper at the time of booking.”
2024-02-26 Customer over multiple messages: “I checked on Hopper and it said $213
. . . It never said on Hopper app that I would have to pay more than the actual
price. . . . Can you see what was charged? 262.10-253.94 is not 34.40”
*****
Hopper: “Sure, Hopper VIP support fee USD25.00 and Hopper TIP USD5.00
was also added to the original reservation hence USD253.94 was charged in
total”
2024-03-25 Customer over multiple messages: “Ok but I got charged extra $5 for no
reason . . . You never addressed the $5 extra charge . . . I never agreed to tip
. . . Anywhere . . . There’s no proof that I selected that and paid for it”
2024-04-05 Hopper in response to customer voicemail: “we’re sorry for any
inconvenience you've experienced. I’ve processed the refund for the $5 tip”
2024-04-24 Customer over multiple messages who was charged for Tip, VIP Support,
and another add-on travel product: “I booked a flight from Denver to
Montgomery and now they are hitting my card with all these charges[.] I want
all these extra charges removed and put back on my card 34.00 5.00 78.00[.] I
only wanted to purchase my flight for 367.00 nothing else”
2024-05-12 Customer: “I’ve just noticed I had vip support for this booking but I didn’t
select it”
12
Case 1:26-cv-13058
32.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 13 of 39
Defendants also monitored online consumer reviews of their Hopper apps that, in
numerous instances, reflected consumer complaints about hidden Tip and VIP Support fees. For
example, an internal presentation entitled “Q4 2022 App Review Sentiment” analyzed and
discussed negative consumer reviews about the Tip and VIP Support fees. The slides indicated
that “29% of [negative] reviews call Hopper a scam as they dispute charges or [they] name
charge as fraudulent” and quoted many reviews, such as the following dated October 30, 2022:
Extremely shady app. On the last step of your flight purchase, the ‘TIP’ option, which
starts from $5 and up to 15% of your ticket value, and a $15 VIP support, are
automatically checked[.] The best part You won’t see the total price at this screen, unless
you scroll down to the bottom and double check the total amount and detail before swipe
to pay. I won’t be surprised tons of use[r]s just ‘tipped’ them without even noticed [sic].
This App should be reported and take[n] down.
33.
As alleged above, Defendants internally acknowledged that their profit and
success depended on charging consumers these hidden, preselected fees.
34.
Defendants have charged consumers millions of dollars in Tip fees each year,
including approximately $6,028,019 in 2021, $8,382,831 in 2022, and $3,560,825 in 2023.
35.
Defendants have charged consumers millions of dollars in VIP Support fees each
year, including approximately $12,927,157 in 2021, $30,298,788 in 2022, and $24,388,192 in
2023.
Defendants’ Employees Repeatedly Raised Concerns About the Unfair and Deceptive Fees
36.
As noted above, on multiple occasions, Defendants’ employees acknowledged in
internal communications that the Hopper app user interfaces often led consumers to pay
Defendants’ hidden, preselected Tip and VIP Support fees without the consumers’ express
informed consent.
13
Case 1:26-cv-13058
37.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 14 of 39
For example, in an October 6, 2022 internal communication, an employee
acknowledged that Defendants, in an effort to survive the COVID-19 pandemic, designed the
user experience (“UX”) to create confusion (i.e., an “anti-pattern”):
Recently, I forgot to turn off the toggle in my own reservation, and like my friends
who’ve previously complained of this feature when I recommend them to use Hopper,
felt “cheated” by Hopper. It seems like we’re well beyond the point of surviving covid
when this optional fee was turned auto-on (a UX anti-pattern for something that brings
the user negative functional value).
38.
As another example, one of Hopper’s principal software engineers referenced the
hidden fees in a July 15, 2021 chat with a Hopper customer experience manager and said, “I’m
struggling to see how we view this as anything but deceptive UX [user experience].” The
engineer also noted, “I know Designers have repeatedly had their concerns ignored on this
front.”
39.
The customer experience manager then raised the engineer’s concerns with a
Hopper manager for business and data strategy and a Hopper data scientist. After reading the
engineer’s concerns, the data scientist responded, “[W]elcome to the club.”
40.
In a December 9, 2021 internal communication, employees raised various
concerns about the hidden, preselected Tip and VIP Support fees, including the following:
[I]’ve been seeing more frustrated comments about toggled on vip and
specifically the tip over the last weeks. I know from time to time we come
back to this topic, but I wanted to ask if there are any plans to revisit this and
consider a different UX (not toggling on automatically)? At least the tip since
the customer doesn’t really get any value in return.
It seems pretty off that we need a quantitative metric to say we shouldn’t
charge users more than the price they were last shown, but . . . [.]
How do we justify the tip here in regard of our Hopper tenets? [The employee
then quotes from Hopper’s “Merchandising Tenets”:]
3. Add value and not fees. We generate revenue through providing goods
and services that customers value and gladly pay for – not through added
fees or markups on the underlying travel products.
14
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 15 of 39
Seems like the tip is straight up a fee, which we try to avoid.
[I]t’s just common sense that no one would like to have something added to a
purchase automatically (at least not me), especially when it’s not in their
benefit (and I’m talking specifically about the tip cause I said on my original
message is the one that concerns the most since the end customer doesn’t
really get any value from it). And we can’t blame it on the customer for “not
checking” or “not scrolling”. [W]e should start from the principle that
customers trust our product and for that reason they should be able to Swipe to
Pay without looking for “hidden fees”, because they shouldn’t expect to get
anything added unless they were the ones who made the decision to add.
To me, the problem here is that we’re tricking users. Any data about future
behavior is going accurately [sic] reflect what’s best for the user. There’s a
good chance that users don’t notice they were over charged, and are still
happy with their experience, but that still does not mean it’s ok.
I like the ideas for doing things more clearly, but I know over 30 employees
who have been trying to fix this UX dark pattern for over 2 years. The
suggestions feel a little empty in the face of all the users we are overcharging.
I was also really disappointed to see that experiment [an experiment forcing
users to scroll down to see the Tip and VIP Support fees before being able to
Swipe to Pay] turned off. I think the opt-out tip and VIP support [sic] has
always been one of my biggest internal concerns since starting at Hopper.
Every other ancillary we have [i.e., Hopper’s add-on products, services, and
fees] is opt-in and clearly is able to show our users how it will benefit them.
Why is tip/VIP support any different? We have been getting negative app
reviews for years because of this (and I have even had personal anecdotes
from friends, which feels horrible). Is it a significant number of users that care
about the extra charge? Maybe not, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to
do by our customers.
If I am not mistaken, we are now experimenting with VIP support pricing with
it going up to $25. That’s a $30 opt-out on the last screen without even forcing
the user to look at the total increase before swiping to pay.
I know VIP benefits our users a lot, but if it really makes that much of a
difference then why are we having such a problem having users opt-in? If it is
so valuable, is there a reason we can’t give it to everyone and build it into our
pricing? At least then we will be transparent about it. If we are making
Hopper the cheapest place to buy, why are we opting our users into a $5 tip at
the very end of shopping?
15
Case 1:26-cv-13058
41.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 16 of 39
Through 2022, employees continued raising concerns about the hidden,
preselected Tip and VIP Support fees. For example, in an August 31, 2022 chat, a Hopper
customer service manager stated: “settings for VIP and Tip are defaulted in the app and quite
often, the Customers don’t notice it.” A Hopper senior software engineer replied: “yes I’m aware
that this is a common scenario, and there has been some debate about the default settings for
these amongst the product/engineering teams.”
Defendants’ Own Internal Testing Illustrates the Deceptive and Unfair Nature of the
Apps’ Booking Flow and Defendants’ Knowledge of the Same
42.
Defendants’ internal testing showed that the Tip and VIP Support fees were
deceptively hidden and reinforced Defendants’ knowledge that, if they adequately disclosed the
Tip and VIP Support fees and made them unselected by default, most consumers would not pay
them. For example, Defendants conducted:
A 2018 Mandatory Booking Service Fee vs. Tip experiment that showed that
only 15% of consumers would affirmatively choose to pay a disclosed and
unselected Tip fee, compared to 25% of consumers who paid a disclosed,
preselected Tip fee; 75% of consumers who paid a hidden, preselected Tip
fee; and 8% of consumers who would affirmatively choose to pay a hidden,
unselected Tip fee. As a result of this experiment, Defendants decided to
change the mandatory booking service fee to a hidden and preselected Tip fee;
A 2021 Tip and VIP Support experiment in which the screen displayed “the
swipe button only after the user has scrolled down enough to see the toggle
controls [i.e., the preselected Tip and VIP support fees],” the results of which
were: “[w]e took a big hit on Revenue” and “[w]e’re losing $3+” in revenue
per transaction. Consequently, Defendants did not adopt this user interface;
A 2023 Tip experiment that showed, as of May 9, 2023, if Defendants
changed the Tip fee from preselected to opt-in, the number of consumers who
affirmatively chose to pay the Tip fee was “predictably low, down about 90%
across the board with Hotels having the highest propensity to Tip when the
toggle is off, at 4% of customers tipping.” Defendants did not adopt this user
interface;
A May 2023 VIP Support fee experiment that showed that requiring
consumers to opt in to VIP Support lowered the conversion rate from 37% to
16
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 17 of 39
5.57% for air and from 19% to 2.6% for hotels. Defendants did not adopt the
opt-in user interface and instead maintained the preselected user interface; and
43.
An August 2023 VIP Support fee experiment that showed that revealing a
preselected VIP Support fee for air lowered the conversion rate from 36.6%
when it was hidden and preselected to: 15.7% when it was revealed within the
booking flow and preselected; 4.7% when it was on a pop-up screen and
preselected; 1.8% when it was revealed and an opt-in was offered; and,
finally, to 1.17% when it was revealed but Basic (free) support was
preselected.
Discussing the above 2023 Tip experiment, on May 1, 2023, a Hopper manager
for business and data strategy noted the significant drop in conversion rate for an unselected,
disclosed Tip (i.e., a “Voluntary Tip”) versus when it was “ON by default”: “Voluntary Tip
attach rate is just 0.75% as opposed to 43% [attach rate] with it ON by default.”
44.
On May 16, 2023, a Hopper customer service manager discussed more specific
results of the 2023 Tip experiment by category of travel service, including that making the Tip
fee unselected by default reduced the number of consumers who paid the Tip fee for air travel by
98%, for hotel stays by 80%, and for car rentals by 93%.
45.
On August 17, 2023, a Hopper customer service manager opined that changing
VIP Support from preselected to opt-in would result in a loss of $6.60 in air revenue per
transaction, “not factoring in the loss of revenue coming from lower air conversion due to forced
choice, which was -13% (air only) – it’s material.”
46.
In late 2023, Defendants rolled back some of the temporary compliance steps they
had taken, which had included suspending the fees, because of the costs involved. Specifically,
Defendants resumed charging the preselected Tip and VIP Support fees but relocated the fees to
above the fold.
17
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 18 of 39
C. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PURPORTED “TIP”
47.
Until late 2018, Hopper charged a mandatory $5 service fee on each booking
transaction. Around the end of 2018, Defendants conducted internal consumer behavior testing
that compared the existing mandatory $5 service fee to four variations where the fees were:
(a) hidden (i.e., below the visible screen) and preselected; (b) disclosed (i.e., on the visible
screen) and preselected; (c) disclosed and opt-in; and (d) hidden and opt-in. The testing showed
that changing the mandatory $5 service fee to a hidden, preselected fee would double conversion
rates. Consequently, around the end of 2018, Defendants relocated the $5 service fee below the
visible screen, preselected it, and renamed it “Tip.”
48.
In 2023, Defendants moved the preselected “Tip” fee to the end of the purchase
flow. The discussion to move Tip to the end of the purchase flow began in or around April 2023
when Hopper’s hidden, preselected Tip was receiving undesired attention from outside sources.
For example, in May 2023, the Wall Street Journal approached Hopper regarding an article the
newspaper was going to write involving the Hopper Tip. In response to this inquiry, an employee
wrote to a Hopper customer service manager, “We’re really getting hit from all directions on this
tip stuff.”
49.
Around the same time, Hopper discussed alternative ways of marketing Tip
without losing too much revenue, and explored moving Tip to the booking confirmation screen
but keeping it preselected by default.
50.
On May 19, 2023, a Hopper customer service manager discussed with a Hopper
customer experience project manager “the right approach” for a new Tip screen design at the end
of the purchase flow. One proposal included three specified amount options ($1, $5, and $9),
with $5 preselected, and a “No thanks” option that would allow consumers to opt out of paying
18
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 19 of 39
the Tip fee. In response to a suggestion to remove the “no thanks” option, the customer
experience project manager stated: “That seems like a very sub-par experience to me. . . . it’s not
very intuitive.” The customer service manager agreed: “I think that skirts the territory of hidden
fees too closely for now. Let’s start with the secondary CTA [call to action] of ‘no thanks’ and
go from there.” As alleged below, however, Defendants ultimately decided against providing a
“No thanks” option that would more clearly and conspicuously disclose the optional nature of the
Tip fee, and the method by which the consumer could decline to pay it.
51.
In the flow that Defendants did implement, after a consumer selects the “Swipe to
Book” travel button, Defendants present consumers with screens substantially similar to Figure
7, below. The first screen says: “Please keep the Hopper app open as our bunnies confirm your
booking!” The next screen then says: “A confirmation email will be sent shortly to [email
address].”
19
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 20 of 39
Figure 7 – Screenshots from End of Hopper In-App Hotel Stay Purchase Flow
[dated Sept. 30, 2025; personal information redacted]
52.
The Tip screen presents three pre-populated tip amounts of $1, $5, and $9. There
is no option for consumers to select a $0 Tip. Nor does the Tip screen otherwise disclose to a
consumer that they can decline to Tip, the method for doing so, or that declining to Tip has no
impact on the processing of their transaction.
53.
Defendants charge the Tip fee to the same payment method the consumer selected
to pay for the booking. Defendants do not disclose the Tip fee or its nature and purpose,
including its optionality, elsewhere in the travel booking flow, including before a consumer
consents to pay for the booking.
54.
Unbeknownst to many consumers, if a consumer does not wish to Tip, they may
press the “X” in the upper left-hand corner of the Tip screen (Figure 7, above). But reasonable
20
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 21 of 39
consumers may not notice this “X” or understand its purpose even if they do notice it. Indeed, in
a chat about moving the Tip to the end of the purchase process, a Hopper employee expressed
this concern. In the May 19, 2023 chat described above in Paragraph 50, the customer service
manager asked if Hopper should just use an “X instead [of] no thanks?” The customer
experience project manager disagreed: “I’d be inclined to give them the second opt-out CTA, in
case the X isn’t obvious.”
55.
In addition, as depicted in Figure 7, above, when consumers select the “Swipe to
Book” travel button, Hopper tells consumers on one screen to “keep the Hopper app open as our
bunnies confirm your booking” and on the next screen (i.e., the Tip screen) that the
“confirmation email will be sent shortly.” A reasonable consumer could interpret these screens to
suggest that their booking has not yet been completed and that selecting the “X” would cancel
their entire booking transaction, not simply close the Tip screen.
D. DEFENDANTS HAVE MISREPRESENTED CONSUMERS’
ACCESS TO AND THE AVAILABILITY OF VIP SUPPORT
56.
In addition to charging consumers for the VIP Support product without their
express informed consent during the booking process, Defendants have also misrepresented the
attributes of VIP Support in their advertising.
57.
As alleged above, Defendants have marketed and sold VIP Support, a paid
customer service product, since 2020.
58.
Defendants have claimed that VIP Support guarantees consumers customer
service instantly or within a specified time such as 5 or 10 minutes.
59.
To induce consumers to purchase VIP Support when they need timely customer
service, such as when they encounter a problem during their travel, Defendants have
21
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 22 of 39
disseminated or caused to be disseminated advertisements that contain the following statements
and depictions, among others:
Figure 8 – Hopper In-App Pop-Up Ad for VIP Support in Trip Summary
[dated Dec. 6, 2022]
[Excerpted Text] 1 out of 3 flights to Seattle need urgent support[.] Your
booking has Basic Support – You may be waiting for up to 48 hours for a
response. Skip the line and get priority support[.] Get a guaranteed response
within 5 minutes[.] Upgrade to VIP Support – US$25.00 [or] No, I won’t need
urgent assistance[.]
22
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 23 of 39
Figure 9 – Hopper In-App Ad for VIP Support
[pops-up when consumers click the “Get Help” link; dated Jan. 30, 2023]
[Excerpted text] Support Level: Basic[.] You have Basic Support for this trip.
Requests will be responded to via email within 24 hours[.] Want to skip the
line? Upgrade to VIP Support to chat with an agent instantly.
60.
Contrary to Defendants’ representations that consumers who purchased VIP
Support would be able to reach an agent “instantly” or within “minutes,” consumers who
purchased VIP Support were often unable to reach a customer support agent at all or had to wait
substantial amounts of time in order to do so.
61.
For example, consumers submitted the following complaints to the Federal Trade
Commission:
2023-08-07
“[T]ried to get in touch with Hopper through calling and paid for VIP support
and cannot get through to anyone.”
2023-04-22
“When I received my receipt, I saw that I was charged $25 per ticket for ‘vip
customer service.’ Turns out Hopper offers no customer service at all. For the
$25, you can send a chat. 40-60 minutes later, someone will reply with an auto
message that doesn’t answer your question or say they can’t help. There is no
phone number. There is no way to elevate or get your request heard -- you just
get a worthless auto message. I also was charged $5 as a ‘tip.’ Why would I tip
a platform that offers no customer service?”
23
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 24 of 39
2023-02-11
“I have no way to contact [VIP Support] they have no contact number and
when you message them no one responds[.]”
2022-12-14
“When we got to the hotel to check-in, we were told that hopper had booked
regular rooms for us instead of the suites we purchased. I reached out to the
VIP support for help, and couldn’t get any type of response leaving us without
any help resolving the issue.”
62.
In addition, Defendants’ internal analysis of their own consumer complaint
database acknowledges that there is “Poor Customer Support”; that consumers find it “Hard to
reach CS when [they] need help”; and consumers experience even “More frustrations when
[they] purchase VIP and still don’t get timely help.” [Bracketed text added.]
63.
Even Defendants’ own employees complained about the lack of timely VIP
Support, such as on December 29, 2022 when an employee posted to Defendants’ #hotelsgeneral Slack chat: “Wondering if anyone know [sic] what’s the best way to get support for a
hotel reservation? I’m trying to reach out through VIP support but haven’t gotten a response after
45 min.”
64.
Defendants’ deceptive representations about consumers’ access to and the
availability of VIP Support were material because they were likely to influence a reasonable
consumer’s decision to purchase VIP Support in addition to the Basic Support that was already
included in the price of the booking.
E. DEFENDANTS HAVE MISREPRESENTED THE ATTRIBUTES OF
PRICE FREEZE
65.
Defendants have marketed and sold Price Freeze, also marketed as Hold the
Room, since at least 2019 as a product that allows consumers to hold or freeze an advertised
price for a travel booking for a period of time so a consumer can book the travel later for the
same price.
24
Case 1:26-cv-13058
66.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 25 of 39
To induce consumers to purchase Price Freeze, Defendants have disseminated or
caused to be disseminated advertisements that contain the following statements and depictions,
including Figures 10–13, among others:
“Hold this fare . . . Book later when you’re ready”;
“Freeze Flight Deals With Just a Deposit”;
“[T]he price freeze tool allows you to keep the prices from increasing”;
“If the price increases, you’ll pay the price you see now”;
“Book your frozen flight to use your deposit within 7 days, otherwise it will
expire”; and
“With Hopper’s Price Freeze feature you can lock in the best rate for an
extended period of time. That gives you time to think about your trip and
make a decision if you want to book it. If the price increases, you pay at the
price you locked in at.”
Figure 10 – Hopper In-App Ad for Price Freeze During Air Travel Booking Process
[dated Mar. 19, 2024; representing: “Hold this fare, starting at $28[.] Book later when
you’re ready”; red oval added]
25
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 26 of 39
Figure 11 – Banner Ad for Hopper
[representing: “Freeze Flight Deals With Just a Deposit”]
Figure 12 – Screenshots from Hopper YouTube Ad
[representing: “And if you’re not quite ready to book, the price freeze tool allows you to
keep the prices from increasing”; initially posted March 14, 2023, captured Apr. 4, 2024]
Figure 13 – Hopper YouTube Ad for Price Freeze
[initially posted Sept. 29, 2021]
[Audio] With Hopper’s Price Freeze feature you can lock in the best rate for an
extended period of time. That gives you time to think about your trip and make a
decision if you want to book it. If the price increases, you pay at the price you
26
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 27 of 39
locked in at. If the price decreases, you pay the lower price and get your deposit
back.
67.
Contrary to Defendants’ representations that Price Freeze holds and freezes the
price of a travel booking and is a deposit on the booking:
Price Freeze will only protect a consumer from a booking’s price increase up to a
certain amount and if the booking is still available; and
The Price Freeze fee is not a deposit on the booking (i.e., it is not an amount
applied toward the total price of the booking when travel is later booked).
Defendants Protect Price Freeze Consumers from Price Increases Only up to a Certain Amount
and Only if the Booking Is Still Available
68.
If a consumer purchases and exercises a Price Freeze for a travel booking,
Defendants will protect the consumer from a booking’s price increase only up to a certain
amount (the “Price Freeze Cap” or “Savings Cap”). Separately, if another person purchases the
particular booking that is subject to the consumer’s Price Freeze, the consumer cannot exercise
27
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 28 of 39
their Price Freeze option. Neither material term or limitation is adequately disclosed to
consumers.
69.
Many of Defendants’ Price Freeze advertisements do not reference any material
limitations, restrictions, or exclusions associated with a consumer exercising their Price Freeze
option during the Price Freeze window.
70.
In numerous instances, Defendants did not adequately disclose the Price Freeze
Cap. For example, numerous advertisements simply refer to Price Freeze as freezing or locking
in prices, or keeping prices from increasing, without limitation:
“And if you’re not quite ready to book, the price freeze tool allows you to keep
the prices from increasing”;
71.
“Freeze Low Prices on Flights and Hotels”; and
“If the price increases, you pay at the price you locked in at.”
In numerous other instances, as set forth in Figures 14 and 15, below, Defendants
have disclosed the Price Freeze Cap only after a consumer has accepted the initial offer making
the Price Freeze claim, but have buried the disclosure among a scattering of other disclaimers,
rendering the disclosure inadequate.
28
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 29 of 39
Figure 14 – Screenshot of Hopper In-App Initial Offer for Price Freeze
[dated May 22, 2025; representing: “Hold this fare” and “Book later when you’re ready”]
72.
Only after the consumer selects “Price Freeze” are they shown the following:
Figure 15 – Screenshots of Hopper In-App Second Screen for Price Freeze
[dated May 22, 2025; after consumers select “Price Freeze” in Figure 14, red ovals added]
29
Case 1:26-cv-13058
73.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 30 of 39
It is only on this second screen, in de-emphasized, normal font, that Defendants
qualify they will “cover the difference up to $300 per traveler.”
74.
Thus, if the cost of the travel booking increases more than the Price Freeze Cap
($300 per traveler) during the Price Freeze period, then the consumer who purchased the Price
Freeze has to pay any difference between the Price Freeze Cap and the increased cost of the
booking. Defendants fail to adequately disclose this material term and limitation.
75.
Further, Defendants fail to disclose or disclose adequately that Price Freeze does
not reserve or hold a booking during the Price Freeze window. If another person purchases the
particular booking that is subject to the consumer’s Price Freeze, the consumer cannot exercise
their Price Freeze option even if it is within the Price Freeze window. In that case, the consumer
who purchased the Price Freeze has to make a separate, new booking, if one is available, that is
not covered by the Price Freeze.
76.
Defendants fail to adequately disclose the above material term and limitation on
securing bookings through Price Freeze. Again, it is only after a consumer has selected Price
Freeze and proceeded to a second screen that Defendants qualify, in normal font among other
brighter colored and emphasized fonts, that “Freezing the price doesn’t reserve the flight.” And
this cryptic disclosure is insufficient, even if it were disclosed earlier and more prominently,
because it is unclear and does not reasonably inform a consumer that if another consumer
purchases the booking which is subject to the Price Freeze, the Price Freeze is ineffective.
77.
Defendants’ misrepresentations about the scope and limitations of Price Freeze
are material because they are likely to influence a reasonable consumer’s decisions to purchase
Price Freeze, when to complete a travel booking, and whether to book through Hopper.
30
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 31 of 39
Defendants Misrepresent that the Price Freeze Fee Is a Deposit on the Travel Booking
78.
When Defendants first started offering Price Freeze, Defendants operated Price
Freeze as a “Deposit Model”: Defendants applied the cost of the Price Freeze paid by consumers
to the underlying travel booking. At different times from mid-2022 to late 2023 (depending on
the type of travel booking), Defendants began operating Price Freeze as a “Fee Model” and
stopped applying the cost of the Price Freeze to the underlying booking, thereby retaining the
fee.
79.
For example, Defendants stopped operating Price Freeze as a “Deposit Model” for
air travel and began operating it as a “Fee Model” around March 24, 2022, and began operating
Price Freeze for hotel stays as a “Fee Model” around December 7, 2023.
80.
However, even after changing Price Freeze to a Fee Model, in numerous
instances, Defendants have continued to represent that the Price Freeze fee is a “deposit” applied
to the cost of a booking. For example, since March 24, 2022, Defendants have represented in
advertisements for air travel:
81.
“Buy now, pay later. $35 deposit, pay 7 days later”;
“Book your frozen flight to use your deposit within 7 days, otherwise it will
expire. Your deposit can only be applied to your frozen flight”;
“Lock in your flight for a small deposit and pay later”; and
“Lock in your flight to New York City for a small deposit and pay later.”
Since December 7, 2023, Defendants also have represented in advertisements for
hotel stays: “Lock in your hotel room with just a deposit. Freeze your price and pay later!”
82.
Defendants made the above and similar representations well after Defendants
switched their Price Freeze product from a Deposit Model to a Fee Model for air travel in 2022
31
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 32 of 39
and for hotel stays in 2023. In reality, the payments are fees that consumers pay on top of the
booking price, are nonrefundable in most instances, and are not deposits.
Consumers Complained to Defendants About Price Freeze
83.
Defendants have been well aware that they have misrepresented Price Freeze and
failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, its terms, restrictions, and limitations to consumers.
84.
For example, in early 2022, Defendants reported persistent consumer complaints
made to customer service representatives expressing dissatisfaction with Price Freeze “due to
low availability and hitting the price cap.”
85.
As another example, in or around May 2023, an internal document titled “Fee
Awareness” discussed Defendants’ “Business Problem” that consumers did not understand that
Defendants had changed the Price Freeze fee from a deposit to a nonrefundable fee.
86.
Defendants’ “Fee Awareness” document summarized the results of multiple
consumer surveys showing widespread consumer confusion with respect to Price Freeze’s terms.
The surveys found that a majority or significant minority of consumers did not understand
several Price Freeze limitations, including that the Price Freeze fee was no longer a deposit, that
Price Freeze had a price cap, and that the Price Freeze fee was nonrefundable. For example,
Defendants’ research showed that:
After Defendants changed Price Freeze from a Deposit Model to a Fee Model, “a
year later both old and new customers think that Price Freeze is a deposit. This
leads to significant customer frustration with approximately 50% of our CS
contact rate coming from fee vs deposit confusion.”
62% of consumers did not understand that there was a price cap on Price Freeze.
45% of consumers incorrectly thought that the Price Freeze fee was refundable.
32
Case 1:26-cv-13058
87.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 33 of 39
Defendants eventually added an ambiguous statement that “Fee will not apply to
the price of the ticket” to the second screen displayed to consumers after they select Price Freeze
(see Figure 15, above).
88.
Despite Defendants’ awareness of widespread consumer confusion, in numerous
instances, Defendants continued to misrepresent that Price Freeze will protect the consumer from
any increase in price and that the fee paid for Price Freeze is a deposit.
VIOLATIONS OF THE FTC ACT
89.
Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in or affecting commerce.”
90.
Acts or practices are unfair under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act if they cause or are
likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid
themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
15 U.S.C. § 45(n).
91.
Misrepresentations or deceptive omissions of material fact constitute deceptive
acts or practices prohibited by Section 5(a) of the FTC Act.
Defendants’ Unfair or Deceptive Fee Practices
Count I
Unfairly Charging Consumers Fees
Without Obtaining Express Informed Consent
92.
In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of travel bookings, including through the means described in Paragraphs
19 to 46 above, Defendants have charged consumers hidden, preselected fees without obtaining
consumers’ express informed consent, including:
A. “Tip” fees; and
33
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 34 of 39
B. VIP Support fees.
93.
Defendants’ acts or practices cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to
consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by
countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
94.
Therefore, Defendants’ acts or practices as described in Paragraph 92 constitute
unfair acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), (n).
Count II
Misrepresentations About Fees and Charges
95.
In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of Defendants’ travel booking services, including through the means
described in Paragraphs 19 to 46 above, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly,
expressly or by implication that:
A. Hopper’s offered, displayed, or advertised price for a travel booking is the
total price consumers will pay for the booking and includes all fees; and
B. Consumers will not be charged any hidden fees or “gotcha” charges in
connection with a Hopper travel booking.
96.
In fact, in numerous instances:
A. Hopper’s offered, displayed, or advertised price for the travel booking was not
the total price consumers paid for the booking and did not include all fees
because it did not include the hidden, preselected “Tip” and VIP Support fees
Defendants have imposed on the transaction; and
B. Consumers have been charged hidden fees or “gotcha” charges, specifically
preselected “Tip” and VIP Support fees, in connection with Hopper travel
bookings.
34
Case 1:26-cv-13058
97.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 35 of 39
Therefore, Defendants’ representations as described in Paragraph 95 are false or
misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
Count III
Failure to Disclose Material Information About the Tip Fee
98.
In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of Defendants’ travel booking services, including through the means
described in Paragraphs 47 to 55 above, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly,
expressly or by implication, that consumers can pay a tip of $1, $5, or $9.
99.
In numerous instances when Defendants have made the representation set forth in
Paragraph 98, Defendants have failed to disclose or disclose adequately to consumers the nature,
purpose, amount, and optionality of the “Tip” fee, including that consumers can decline to pay
the “Tip” fee or can pay a $0 “Tip.” This additional information would be material to consumers
in their conduct regarding or use of Defendants’ travel booking services, including whether to
pay the “Tip” fee.
100.
In light of the representation described in Paragraph 98, Defendants’ failure to
disclose or disclose adequately the material information as described in Paragraph 99 constitutes
a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
35
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 36 of 39
Defendants’ Misrepresentations About Their Add-On Products
Count IV
Misrepresentations About VIP Support
101.
In numerous instances, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of their VIP Support product, including through the means described in
Paragraphs 56 to 64 above, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by
implication, that VIP Support guarantees consumers customer service instantly or within a
specified time such as 5 or 10 minutes.
102.
In fact, in numerous instances, consumers who purchase VIP Support have not
received customer service instantly or within a specified time such as 5 or 10 minutes.
103.
Therefore, Defendants’ representations as described in Paragraph 101 are false or
misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
Count V
Misrepresentations About Price Freeze
104.
In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of their Price Freeze product, including through the means described in
Paragraphs 65 to 88 above, Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by
implication, that:
A. Price Freeze protects consumers from any increase in the price of a booking;
and
B. The Price Freeze fee is a deposit on the price of a travel booking.
105.
In fact, in numerous instances:
36
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 37 of 39
A. Price Freeze protects consumers from an increase in the price of a booking
only up to a cap; and
B. The Price Freeze fee is not a deposit on the price of a travel booking.
106.
Therefore, Defendants’ representations as described in Paragraph 104 are false or
misleading and constitute a deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
VIOLATIONS OF THE TRADE REGULATION
RULE ON UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE FEES
107.
The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (“Fees Rule”), promulgated by the
Commission under Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a, became effective on May 12,
2025, and remains in full force and effect. The Fees Rule is codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 464.
108.
Defendants are “businesses” that offer, display, or advertise prices of short-term
lodging, a “covered good or service” as defined by the Fees Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 464.1.
109.
Section 464.1 of the Fees Rule provides that “total price” means, in pertinent part,
“the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and
any mandatory ancillary good or service.”
110.
Section 464.2 of the Fees Rule provides, inter alia, that it is an unfair and
deceptive practice and a violation of the Fees Rule “to offer, display, or advertise any price of a
covered good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price,” and it
requires businesses to disclose clearly and conspicuously, before the consumer consents to pay,
“[t]he nature, purpose, and amount of any fee or charge imposed on the transaction that has been
excluded from total price and the identity of the good or service for which the fee or charge is
imposed.”
37
Case 1:26-cv-13058
111.
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 38 of 39
Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, authorizes this Court to grant such
relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from violations of any
rule promulgated under Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(a)(1)(B).
112.
Pursuant to Section 18(d)(3) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57a(d)(3), a violation of
the Fees Rule also constitutes an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, in
violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
Count VI
Failure to Clearly and Conspicuously Disclose the Nature and Purpose of the Tip Fee
113.
In numerous instances in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion,
offering for sale, or sale of Defendants’ short-term lodging booking services, including through
the means described in Paragraphs 47 to 55 above, Defendants have represented, directly or
indirectly, expressly or by implication, that consumers can pay a tip of $1, $5, or $9.
114.
In numerous instances when Defendants have made the representation set forth in
Paragraph 113, Defendants have failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers the
nature, purpose, and amount of the “Tip” fee at the end of the purchase flow, including that
consumers can decline to pay the “Tip” fee or can pay a $0 “Tip.”
115.
Therefore, Defendants’ representations as set forth in Paragraph 113 constitute
unfair and deceptive practices that violate Section 464.2(c) of the Fees Rule, 16 C.F.R.
§ 464.2(c), and Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a).
CONSUMER INJURY
116.
Consumers are suffering, have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantial
injury as a result of Defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and the Fees Rule. Absent injunctive
relief by this Court, Defendants are likely to continue to injure consumers and harm the public
interest.
38
Case 1:26-cv-13058
Document 1
Filed 07/02/26
Page 39 of 39
CONSUMER REDRESS
117.
Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, authorizes this Court to grant such
relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from violations of the
FTC trade regulation rules. Accordingly, Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, also
authorizes this Court to grant such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to
consumers resulting from violations of the Fees Rule. This relief may include, and is not limited
to, rescission or reformation of contract, and the refund of money or return of property.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:
A. Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and
the Fees Rule;
B. Award monetary and other relief within the Court’s power to grant; and
C. Award any additional relief as the Court determines to be just and proper.
Dated: July 2, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION:
/s/ Karen J. Mandel
Karen J. Mandel, Esq. (NY 2841948)
Edwin Rodriguez, Esq. (DC 446457)
Esther J. Lee, Esq. (WA 63356)
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20580
Tel.:
(202) 326-2491 (Mandel)
(202) 326-3147 (Rodriguez)
(202) 326-2633 (Lee)
Email:
kmandel@ftc.gov
erodriguez@ftc.gov
elee4@ftc.gov
39
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.