Jay (John) Fort

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026

At the forefront of twenty-first century consumer protection issues is corporate price-gouging. Among the most notable examples is the issue of “junk fees” or “drip pricing,” fees which are not initially visible in the list price of goods and service, but are surreptitiously added to the price total by the close of the transaction. Recently, media reports have spotlighted numerous industries implicated by the “hidden pricing” phenomenon, including commercial travel, finance and banking, hospitality, entertainment, and more. Common examples include mandatory fees i.e. common addition of a 3-5 % surcharge added to your bill by a restaurant or concert venue, or an unexplained cleaning fee charged by a hotel at checkout. Perhaps now more than ever, U.S. consumers rely on state and federal government regulators to clarify, enforce, and update statutes for twenty-first century demands, ever emerging technologies, and a modern consumer economy.

Traditional consumer protection against predatory fees, pricing, and practices

Traditionally, laws protecting consumers and buyers from predatory, abusive merchant practices can be traced to the legal codes of nation states and societies across the globe. In the U.S., this includes codes such as that governing the sale of goods under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), as well as the law of contracts rooted in the English Common Law and Civil Law and the Statute of Frauds. In the 1960s, a growing movement for enhanced consumer protection pressure reached a fever pitch, resulting in pivotal federal and state statutes, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, charged with regulating key industries and large sectors of the economy. Subsequently, Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) statutes, commonly referred to as “little FTC Acts,” similarly regulated commerce on both the state and federal level. Although differing in their scope of regulation (i.e. cause and right of action requirements, jurisdiction), the goal of each statute is the protection of consumers from predatory commercial practice, regulating unfair practices, from deception and fraud to usurious interest rates between debtors and creditors.

Bad blood, more trouble: Taylor Swift’s legal action against Live Nation and Ticket Master

Recently, high-profile claims of predatory pricing have been levied against powerful corporations. One prominent example is Taylor Swift versus Live Nation and Ticketmaster. Emerging in the wake of the global Covid-19 pandemic, a public battle over price gouging and transparency by one of the music industry’s most popular stars, Taylor Swift, arose during her 2022 global Era’s Tour. Building upon charges brought by fans and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the action alleges that Ticket Master and Live Nation (its parent company) participated in racketeering (fraudulently deceptive) activity, and antitrust violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The charges allege ticket purchasers were coerced to “part with more money than they are led to believe and well exceeding the value of the products and services they receive.” In March 2026, Live-Nation-Ticket Master reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) after a multi-year appeals process, resulting in judicial criticism for private negotiations occurring while the trial was underway. This case highlights a growing public scrutiny of hidden fee pricing, a trend that can no longer be ignored.

Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau action

The FTC and CFPB, among the most consequential federal regulatory agencies, have initiated targeted regulatory action in response to the corporate price gouging of consumers. In May 2025, the FTC issued a final rule  prohibiting junk fees in two industries, including hospitality, in the form of short-term lodging, and entertainment, namely live event experiences. Specifically, the rule shifts from restriction to an outright full ban on “drip-pricing” in these regulated industries. An important component of the rule include regulating hidden or misrepresented fees, which would be considered as unfair or deceptive practices. While the current administration’s FTC chair has signaled openness to enforcement of the rule, its future implementation remains uncertain as it is subject to the Congressional Review Act, with which Congress could issue a resolution of disapproval, neutralizing the rule entirely. To date, the rule remains in effect.

Similarly, in 2024, CFPB proposed a rule which would have prevented the withdrawal of nonsufficient funds fees (NSFs) a type of “overdraft fees” businesses charge consumers for overdrafts of their accounts, no matter how minor. Such transactions include charges via debit cards, automatic teller machines (ATMs), and certain person-to-person apps. If enacted, this proposed rule would declare that charging such fees would constitute an abusive practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). Proposed by the CFPB at the close of the Biden administration, the rule was ultimately withdrawn by the incoming administration in January 2025.

What now? Next steps in a combined private and public approach

In 2026, a modern wave of 21st century industrial market consolidation continues to stare down today’s consumers. Coupled with limited federal regulatory enforcement, the result is an increasingly common practice of large corporations adding hidden fees to ever-rising consumer prices, with little to no explanation or up-front transparency for purchasers. While such practices have become increasingly publicized and controversial, resulting in private legal action (i.e. national class action lawsuits), there is much more work to be done.

Encouragingly, both private and public rights of action continue to gain ground nationally. Both private plaintiffs andstate attorneys general and have demonstrated a renewed enforcement energy, simply put: a willingness and demonstrated success in holding corporations accountable through UDAP, state (i.e. California) and local laws aimed at protecting consumers engaging in open, transparent transactional activities. However, for the consumer protection movement to thrive, the momentum must continue, combining judicial wins with increased public awareness and leaders willing to place the needs of consumers over the corporate bottom line.