States expand pricing transparency requirements as “drip pricing” scrutiny intensifies

Drip pricing refers to the practice of advertising a price that excludes mandatory fees, which are disclosed only later in the purchasing process. In the past year alone, three states had laws go into effect specifically targeting these types of fees. Meanwhile, civil litigation arising from similar practices has continued in courts across the country, including in states without junk fee-specific legislation. Lawsuits challenging allegedly deceptive fees have proliferated across industries, including retail, hospitality, housing, ticketing, and transportation. In this alert, we summarize the new state legislation and provide an overview of recent litigation trends.

State Legislation in 2026

Colorado 

Colorado’s House Bill 25-1090, which became effective January 1, 2026, is among the most expansive state laws targeting hidden fees. The law prohibits businesses from advertising prices that exclude mandatory fees and requires businesses to present consumers with a single total price before they agree to purchase goods, services, or rental housing. The total price, however, does not need to include government or shipping charges. 

Violations of the Colorado law constitute deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, which authorizes enforcement by the Colorado Attorney General and provides a private right of action for individuals and classes. The Attorney General may seek civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation, with each consumer or transaction constituting a separate violation. Individual consumers may recover the greater of (i) actual damages, plus at least 8% prejudgment interest, or (ii) $500. Class actions are limited to actual damages, available injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Oregon 

Oregon’s Senate Bill 430 also became effective January 1, 2026, and requires online sellers to include in any advertised or displayed price all fees and charges that a consumer must pay to complete a transaction. The law applies specifically to online sales of goods and services.

SB 430 classifies drip-pricing violations as unlawful practices under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA). The Oregon Attorney General may enforce the statute and seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for willful misconduct. Consumers may also bring individual or class actions under the UTPA’s existing private right of action. A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of a willful unlawful practice may recover the greater of actual damages or $200.

Notably, the Oregon statute excludes (1) government-imposed taxes and fees, (2) reasonable shipping or delivery charges actually incurred, and (3) service fees calculated based on distance or a consumer’s selections, provided those fees are prominently disclosed before the consumer agrees to purchase. 

Connecticut 

More recently, Connecticut’s Senate Bill 3 took effect on July 1, 2026, further expanding the growing number of state laws requiring greater pricing transparency in consumer transactions.

Like the laws enacted by Oregon and Colorado, the Connecticut statute generally requires businesses to include all mandatory fees in an advertised price. 

Violations of the law constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The statute may be enforced by the Connecticut Attorney General, who may seek civil penalties of up to $5,000 per willful violation. Consumers may also bring individual or class actions under CUTPA, though recovery is limited to actual damages in both individual and class actions.

The law permits businesses to exclude taxes and government-imposed fees from the total advertised price. It also allows mandatory gratuities to be excluded, provided their existence is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to consumers. Likewise, fees that cannot be calculated at the time a price is advertised, such as certain variable fees, may be excluded so long as the business clearly discloses that such fees apply.

Litigation Activity Continues Across the Country

The expansion of state pricing transparency laws has coincided with a growing number of consumer class actions challenging allegedly hidden or inadequately disclosed fees. Even states without specific laws aimed at drip pricing are seeing a rise in these types of cases brought under general consumer protection statutes.

Recent examples of actions include: 

• a putative class action filed against a movie theater chain, alleging violations of Oregon’s new statute based on online ticket purchases that included mandatory convenience fees disclosed only after consumers progressed through the checkout process; 
• a recently filed putative class action against a hotel group in Colorado, alleging that spa and salon prices were advertised without noting a mandatory 22.5% service charge; 
• a putative class action against an apartment rental website in Washington, alleging that the rental payment platform violated Washington’s consumer protection laws because it imposed inadequately disclosed processing fees on tenants making rent payments online; and 
• a putative class action brought under various state consumer protection statutes against the operator of youth hockey tournaments, alleging that consumers were steered into designated hotels through allegedly misleading stay-to-play policies and charged undisclosed booking-related fees.

Key Takeaways 

As states continue to enact pricing transparency laws and plaintiffs increasingly test those laws through class action litigation, businesses can proactively assess whether their pricing and disclosure practices comply with evolving requirements. 

For example, companies that advertise or sell goods and services online can: 

• determine which state pricing transparency laws may apply to their transactions based on the jurisdictions in which the company advertises, sells goods, or services, or otherwise does business; 
• identify all fees and charges imposed during the consumer purchasing process and review online checkout flows to ensure mandatory charges are disclosed appropriately and at the required stage of the transaction; and
• evaluate advertising, marketing, and consumer-facing disclosures for consistency with state pricing transparency requirements.

With additional states considering similar legislation and plaintiffs’ attorneys maintaining a strong focus on hidden-fee litigation, businesses can expect continued scrutiny of fee disclosures.

If you have any questions about this Legal Briefing, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.