Penalty Amount
$35,000,000
The FTC alleged that Hopper, a travel booking app, charged consumers hidden and pre-selected fees (Tip and VIP Support) without their consent, and misrepresented the benefits of its VIP Support and Price Freeze services. Hopper agreed to pay $35 million for consumer redress and is prohibited from misrepresenting fees, with requirements to clearly disclose fees and total prices.
Hopper must pay $35 million for consumer redress. The company is prohibited from misrepresenting any fees and must clearly and conspicuously disclose fees, charges, total price, and final payment amount.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements with travel booking platforms and any customer-facing terms to ensure that all fees are clearly disclosed and that consumers provide affirmative consent before any charges are applied. Specifically, check clauses related to additional fees, pre-selected options, and the process for obtaining consent. Also review any representations about service benefits (e.g., VIP support, price freeze) to ensure they are accurate and not misleading. Update contracts to include clear disclosure requirements and consent mechanisms, and consider adding provisions that prohibit dark patterns in user interfaces.
Entity
Hopper Inc.
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/travel-app-hopper-pay-35-million-settle-ftc-allegations-it-charged-fees-without-consent-deceived
2323086 Complaint Hopper
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323086-Complaint-Hopper.pdf
2323086 Proposed Order Hopper
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323086-Proposed-Order-Hopper.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc"
"agreed to pay $35 million"
"violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the FTC’s Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule"
"unfairly charged users without their consent for “Tip” and VIP Support fees"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.