Hopper Reaches $35 Million Agreement With The FTC

The FTC recently announced the settlement (subject to court approval) of an action premised in part on its Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule (the so-called “Junk Fee Rule”

The FTC and the companies that operate the Hopper travel apps reached an agreement that would require the companies to pay $35 million. The companies would also be prohibited from unfairly charging consumers hidden fees and misrepresenting the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies’ VIP Support and Price Freeze Services. According to the FTC, Hopper allows consumers to search and book airfares, lodging and rental cars primarily through its apps.

The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, contended that the Canadian company Hopper and its Massachusetts subsidiary “unfairly charged users without their consent for fees that the company claimed were optional yet were hidden and pre-selected for consumers,” the FTC said.

The complaint alleged that in doing so Hopper violated the FTC Act and, since May 12, 2025, the FTC’s Junk Fee Rule.

“Hopper deceived consumers by showing them a total price that did not include hidden, pre-selected fees,” Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said.

 The FTC stated that “[u]ntil mid-2023, when consumers were ready to purchase their booking, they saw a screen with the ‘total price’ and a Swipe to Book button that failed to adequately disclose that the company would add charges for Tip and VIP Support fees. These ‘optional’ fees were pre-selected and hidden on an app screen that only appeared if the consumer scrolled down. Since 2023, Hopper has continued to fail to disclose that Tip fees were optional.”

According to the FTC, Hopper specifically violated the Junk Fee Rule by failing to disclose “the nature, purpose, and amount” of the Tip fee and that consumers could decline to pay the Tip fee or instead pay a $0 Tip.

The FTC said that consumers routinely complained that they did not consent to these extra fees, that “VIP Support fees were deceptively hidden, and that if Hopper [had] adequately disclosed these fees and made them unselected by default, most consumers would [have declined] them.”

The FTC also contended that Hopper misrepresented the benefits consumers would receive from the VIP Support service and that consumers were also misled about the benefits they would receive from purchasing the “Price Freeze” service, also known as “Hold the Room.”

The FTC asserted “[t]he company has said the service would allow consumers to hold or freeze an advertised price for a travel booking for a period of time so a consumer [could] book the travel later for the same price and that the fee paid for Price Freeze [would] be applied to the total price of the booking.”

However, the FTC contended that Hopper failed to disclose restrictions on these services, including that “Price Freeze” only protected the price up to a certain amount and only if a booking were still available. The FTC also said that the company failed to apply the “Price Freeze” fee toward the cost of booking, as the company had promised.

In response to the settlement, Hopper said, “[t]he FTC’s allegations were narrow: [they] primarily [involved] outdated display practices implemented during the pandemic, [that were] limited to the Hopper app, and [that were] discontinued by Hopper in mid-2023, prior to the start of the FTC’s inquiry. Importantly, the FTC raised no issues with the current Hopper app or website, other business divisions, current product offerings, or any other practices.” 

The company added, “[w]e decided to settle because the claims at issue are outdated and have no bearing on our business. Pursuing years of litigation over outdated, ticky-tacky issues would distract us from our current customers and partners — and that is not a distraction we are willing to accept. There are no other ongoing investigations with the FTC or any other agency. The settlement amount does not reflect the merit of the claims. It reflects our decision to move forward.”