Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary, Hopper (USA), Inc., this week agreed to pay 35 million dollars to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the travel booking app charged consumers fees without their consent while advertising a "no hidden fees" promise, according to the FTC.

The settlement, filed July 2, 2026, as a stipulated order in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, resolves a complaint that accused the Canadian company and its American subsidiary of pre-selecting optional charges, misrepresenting the value of add-on services, and continuing some of the disputed practices even after a 2025 federal rule was designed to stop them. Case number 1:26-cv-13058 names Hopper Inc. and Hopper (USA), Inc. as defendants. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the filing.

Hopper operates as a search and booking platform for airfares, hotel stays, and rental cars, competing in a segment of online travel where price transparency has become a recurring regulatory flashpoint. According to the complaint, the company's practices centered on two add-on products: a service called VIP Support and another called Price Freeze, also marketed as Hold the Room. Both, the FTC alleged, were sold in ways that obscured their true cost or overstated their benefits.

What the complaint alleges

Until mid-2023, consumers preparing to complete a booking saw a screen displaying a "total price" alongside a "Swipe to Book" button, according to the FTC. That screen, the complaint states, failed to disclose that the company would add separate charges for a "Tip" and for VIP Support. Those fees were described internally as optional, yet the complaint says they were pre-selected by default and positioned on a part of the screen that only became visible if a user scrolled down. The FTC states that since 2023, Hopper has continued to fail to disclose that the Tip fee remained optional.

Consumers noticed. The complaint quotes one buyer's complaint in full: "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." That sentiment, the FTC states, was not isolated; the agency alleges that consumers routinely complained about fees they never intended to purchase, and that those charges generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the company.

Internal concerns. Perhaps the most striking element of the complaint involves the company's own staff. According to the FTC, Hopper employees raised objections internally about how fees were being presented. One employee, in a company communication cited in the complaint, wrote: "To me, the problem here is that we're tricking users." The complaint further alleges that Hopper's own internal testing showed the Tip and VIP Support fees were deceptively hidden, and that when the company tested a version where those fees were unselected by default, most consumers declined to add them at all. That finding, if accurate, suggests the company understood the commercial effect of the pre-selected design before regulators intervened.

The VIP Support service itself drew separate scrutiny. Hopper marketed the add-on as guaranteeing that customers could reach a support representative "instantly" or within a few minutes, according to the complaint. In practice, the FTC alleges, many consumers who paid for VIP Support were either unable to reach an agent at all or had to wait substantial periods before getting help, a gap between advertised and actual service that the complaint frames as a core misrepresentation rather than a peripheral service shortfall.

Price Freeze and its restrictions

The second product named in the complaint, Price Freeze, was pitched as a way for travelers to lock in an advertised fare for a set period, with the fee later applied toward the total cost of the eventual booking. According to the FTC, Hopper failed to clearly disclose several restrictions built into the product: that Price Freeze protected the price only up to a certain dollar amount, and only if the original booking remained available at the time the consumer chose to complete the purchase. The complaint additionally alleges that the company did not apply the Price Freeze fee toward the final booking cost as promised, undercutting the product's central value proposition for buyers who relied on it to manage travel budgets.

Taken together, the FTC's complaint characterizes this conduct as a violation of the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices. For short-term lodging bookings specifically, the agency alleges Hopper's practices have violated the Commission's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, 16 C.F.R. Part 464, since that rule took effect on May 12, 2025. The Fees Rule requires covered businesses selling live-event tickets or short-term lodging to disclose the total price of a transaction clearly and prominently, before a consumer agrees to pay.

Terms of the settlement

The stipulated order, signed by counsel for both parties, does not require Hopper to admit or deny the FTC's allegations, though the company does admit facts necessary to establish the court's jurisdiction over the case. Under the order, Hopper must pay the full 35 million dollars in twelve installments, structured on a schedule tied to a "First Payment Date" defined as either seven days after the order's entry or August 21, 2026, whichever comes later.

The payment schedule calls for eleven installments of 2,917,000 dollars each, spaced at 30-day intervals following the first payment, and a final twelfth installment of 2,913,000 dollars due 330 days after the first payment. If Hopper misses any scheduled payment, the order states that the entire remaining judgment becomes immediately due, plus interest calculated from the date the order was entered. Money collected under the order will be used for direct consumer redress, according to the order, with any funds remaining after redress is completed available for related relief or deposited to the United States Treasury.

Beyond the monetary judgment, the order imposes standing obligations on Hopper's future conduct. The company is permanently barred from imposing any fee or charge on a consumer without first obtaining what the order defines as "Express Informed Consent," an affirmative act of assent made after a clear disclosure of the fee's nature, purpose, amount, optionality, and refundability. Hopper is also prohibited from misrepresenting the total price of any good or service, the final amount a consumer will pay, or the nature of any fee, including whether it constitutes a tip, a deposit, or a mandatory charge.

The order additionally requires Hopper to disclose the total price of any covered good or service more prominently than any other pricing information displayed during a transaction, and to automatically refund all fees connected to a cancelled or unfulfilled transaction without requiring the consumer to separately request that refund. For live-event tickets and short-term lodging specifically, the order layers on requirements mirroring the Fees Rule itself, including a bar on advertising prices without clearly disclosing the total price upfront.

Compliance monitoring extends well beyond the payment period. Hopper must submit a sworn compliance report to the Commission one year after the order's entry and must notify the FTC of certain structural changes, such as a merger or dissolution, for fifteen years. The company must also retain detailed records, including a functional copy of every version of its mobile application and documentation of any material change to the user path from initial browsing to final purchase confirmation, for the same fifteen-year period.

The statement from the FTC

Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, addressed the case directly. "Hopper deceived consumers by showing them a total price that did not include hidden, pre-selected fees," Mufarrige said, according to the FTC. He added a broader framing of the agency's enforcement posture: "The Commission will continue to use all available tools to promote price transparency and to combat unfair and deceptive pricing, billing and cancellation practices."

The lead staff on the matter, according to the FTC, include Karen Mandel, Edwin Rodriguez, and Esther Lee of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Hopper's defense counsel included attorneys from Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, and Torridon Law, with Brian Carroll signing the order as an officer of both Hopper (USA), Inc. and Hopper Inc. on June 12, 2026, three weeks before the Commission's attorneys signed on July 2, 2026.

Context within federal fee enforcement

The case lands within a broader regulatory architecture built specifically to address the kind of drip pricing described in the complaint. The FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which took effect May 12, 2025, was designed to prohibit bait-and-switch pricing tactics across the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries, requiring that the total price a consumer will pay be disclosed clearly and made more prominent than any other pricing figure on a page. The rule does not cap what businesses can charge; it targets how those charges are disclosed and at what point in a transaction they become visible to the buyer.

That distinction matters for how the Hopper complaint is likely to be read across the travel and advertising sectors. The FTC's allegations do not claim that VIP Support or Price Freeze were improper products to sell. Instead, the complaint centers on the mechanics of disclosure: fees that were pre-selected rather than opted into, benefits that were overstated relative to what consumers actually received, and a scroll-dependent screen layout that the agency alleges obscured material terms from the average buyer. Enforcement actions built around those mechanics, rather than around the underlying product, tend to generate the widest compliance ripple effects, since the same interface patterns appear across many booking platforms beyond the one named in a given case.

Hopper is not the first company drawn into FTC fee and disclosure enforcement, and the pattern of scrutiny extends across sectors that rely on default-selected charges or ambiguous benefit claims. The Commission's broader consumer protection enforcement in 2026 has spanned location data practices, with the agency closing its long-running case against data broker Kochava in May 2026 under similarly structured consent and disclosure requirements. Deceptive pricing claims have also surfaced in retail contexts far removed from travel booking; a federal court fight over the Tempur-Sealy and Mattress Firm merger surfaced allegations of inflated reference pricing used to make discounts appear larger than they were, illustrating how disclosure-based scrutiny has extended well past the travel sector that anchors the Hopper case.

Why this matters for marketers and publishers

For advertising and marketing professionals, the Hopper settlement offers a concrete illustration of how the FTC now defines the boundary between permissible upselling and unlawful fee concealment. Pre-selected add-ons, default opt-ins buried below a visible fold, and service guarantees that outperform actual delivery are treated by the agency as distinct legal risks, not simply as aggressive but lawful monetization tactics. Marketing teams building checkout flows, landing pages, or app purchase paths for travel, lodging, or ticketing products now have a detailed public record of what a federal complaint considers deceptive, down to the specific screen behavior and default-selection mechanics involved.

The twelve-year and fifteen-year recordkeeping and disclosure obligations embedded in the order also signal that this is not a one-time penalty followed by a return to normal operations. Hopper must retain a functional, executable copy of every version of its app for fifteen years, along with records showing any material change to the purchase path. That requirement effectively creates a permanent audit trail of user experience design decisions, a compliance burden that extends into product and growth teams well beyond the legal department typically tasked with regulatory response.

The case also reinforces that internal communications are discoverable and can become central evidence in a public complaint. The employee quote cited in the FTC's filing, expressing discomfort with "tricking users," demonstrates that Slack messages, emails, and other internal records documenting concerns about a monetization tactic can surface in litigation regardless of whether those concerns were acted upon. For growth and product marketing teams operating in regulated categories, that dynamic changes the calculus around how internal disagreements about aggressive design choices are documented and resolved.

Timeline

  • May 12, 2025 - The FTC's Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees takes effect, prohibiting bait-and-switch pricing for live-event tickets and short-term lodging.
  • Mid-2023 - According to the complaint, Hopper's "Swipe to Book" screen stops adequately disclosing Tip and VIP Support charges added to a displayed total price.
  • Since 2023 - The complaint alleges Hopper continues failing to disclose that the Tip fee remains optional.
  • June 12, 2026 - Brian Carroll signs the stipulated order as an officer of Hopper (USA), Inc. and Hopper Inc.
  • July 2, 2026 - The FTC files its complaint and the stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; the Commission announces the 35 million dollar settlement.
  • August 21, 2026 - The latest possible date for the "First Payment Date" under the order, if the order has not been entered sooner.

Summary

Who: The Federal Trade Commission brought the action against Hopper Inc., a Canadian company, and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary, Hopper (USA), Inc., which together operate the Hopper travel booking app.

What: Hopper agreed to pay 35 million dollars and accept a permanent injunction settling FTC allegations that it charged consumers hidden, pre-selected fees for VIP Support and misrepresented the benefits of VIP Support and Price Freeze services, despite advertising a "no hidden fees" policy.

When: The FTC filed its complaint and the stipulated order on July 2, 2026, with the underlying conduct alleged to have occurred from before mid-2023 through the present, including continuing violations of the Fees Rule since it took effect May 12, 2025.

Where: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts as case number 1:26-cv-13058.

Why: The FTC alleges Hopper's pre-selected fees and overstated service guarantees generated millions of dollars in additional revenue while depriving consumers of the price transparency the company had publicly promised, conduct the Commission says violated both the FTC Act and its Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees.