Massachusetts’ Unfair and Deceptive Fees regulation, effective September 2, 2025, establishes rigorous price disclosure standards under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The rule targets hidden junk fees and mandatory charges across retail and ticketing sectors, driving state-level enforcement while federal rulemaking faces legal hurdles like the Eighth Circuit’s FTC rule vacatur.
The Bottom Line
- Massachusetts consumer protection rules now mandate that initial price presentations include all mandatory fees outside of government and shipping charges.
- Federal oversight remains fragmented following the Eighth Circuit’s July 8, 2025 vacatur of the FTC Negative Option Rule in Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC.
- Private class action litigation targeting major sports franchises is actively testing state statutes, including claims against the San Francisco Giants and the Boston Red Sox.
How Massachusetts Redefines Clear and Conspicuous Fee Disclosures
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Unfair and Deceptive Fees regulation significantly shifts the compliance baseline for businesses operating within the state. Under Section 38.04, sellers must clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price—representing the maximum amount a consumer must pay—at both initial and subsequent price presentations. This requirement captures mandatory fees while excluding only government and shipping charges.
Disclosures in dual-medium formats, such as television advertisements, must appear simultaneously in both visual and audible portions. Furthermore, interactive electronic media like websites or mobile apps must feature unavoidable disclosures rather than relying on accessible hyperlinks or footer notes.
Crucially, any surrounding visual or textual element that contradicts or mitigates the fee notice violates the statute.
Why Federal Rulemaking Stalled While State Enforcement Accelerates
National efforts to curb hidden charges suffered a major setback when the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s amended Negative Option Rule on July 8, 2025. In Custom Communications, Inc. v. FTC, the court found that the agency failed to conduct the preliminary regulatory analysis required for rules with projected annual effects exceeding $100 million. Consequently, the federal “Click-to-Cancel” requirement did not take effect as scheduled.
With federal standardization stalled, individual states have stepped into the regulatory vacuum. California’s Honest Pricing Act took effect on July 1, 2024, followed by Minnesota’s all-in pricing rules on January 1, 2025. Massachusetts joined this cohort with its September 2, 2025 regulation, creating a complex patchwork of compliance obligations for national retailers and service providers.
Unlike standard civil litigation, a Massachusetts AG enforcement action regarding unfair and deceptive fees typically requires no named plaintiff, class representative, arbitration agreement analysis, or individualized proof of consumer reliance or injury. This lowers the procedural barrier for state-level enforcement actions.
How Class Actions Target Mandatory Ticket Fees in Major League Baseball
Private litigants are actively applying state pricing statutes to live entertainment and sports ticketing. Putative class actions against Major League Baseball franchises—specifically the San Francisco Giants and the Boston Red Sox—illustrate the reach of drip pricing theories under state consumer protection laws.
The complaint against the San Francisco Giants alleges violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. The plaintiff asserts that tickets advertised at a base starting price accrued mandatory convenience and order processing fees only at the final checkout screen. In response, the Giants moved to compel individual arbitration and dismiss the action.
Similarly, the Red Sox litigation involves claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs argue that online purchase screens displayed ticket prices without mandatory fees during seat selection. Additional friction allegedly occurred at checkout through per-ticket and order fees accompanied by a strict five-minute countdown timer. The Red Sox have moved to compel arbitration under Major League Baseball’s Terms of Use.
| State Regulation / Action | Effective Date | Primary Scope |
|---|---|---|
| California Honest Pricing Act | July 1, 2024 | All-in retail pricing requirements |
| Eighth Circuit FTC Rule Vacatur | July 8, 2025 | Federal Negative Option Rule set aside |
| Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Fees | September 2, 2025 | Total price disclosure & recurring billing rules |
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
