New York City Proposes Sweeping “All-In Pricing” Rule Targeting Junk Fees Across Virtually Every Industry

On July 8, 2026, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) proposed a far-reaching rule that would prohibit businesses from charging consumers hidden “junk fees” and require “all-in” pricing for virtually every good and service advertised in New York City. If adopted, the proposal would represent one of the broadest municipal price-transparency regulations in the country and would significantly expand the City’s efforts to combat so-called junk fees beyond the hotel industry. 

Comments on the proposal are due by August 7, 2026, and DCWP has scheduled a public hearing for that same day. 

On April 23, 2026, we released an episode of our Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, in which our featured guest was Sam Levine, Commissioner of the DWCP. He spoke about the agency’s evolving role as one of the most active local consumer protection regulators in the country.

A Broad Expansion of New York City’s Anti-Junk Fee Initiative

The proposal follows a series of New York City initiatives aimed at increasing price transparency. Earlier this year, DCWP adopted regulations requiring hotels to disclose the full price of a stay, including mandatory resort fees and similar charges. More recently, the City proposed a first-in-the-nation municipal “click-to-cancel” rule governing subscription services.

Unlike those industry-specific initiatives, however, the new proposal is intentionally industry-neutral. DCWP states that hidden fees have proliferated across numerous sectors, including third-party delivery services, rental housing, hotels, event tickets, and many others, and that a generally applicable rule is necessary to ensure meaningful consumer protection. 

The Core Requirement: Advertise the Total Price

The centerpiece of the proposal is straightforward.

A business would be prohibited from advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service unless it clearly and conspicuously discloses the total price the consumer must pay.

The proposal defines “total price” to include all mandatory fees and charges while excluding:

• taxes and government-imposed fees;
• reasonable postage or shipping charges actually incurred to deliver physical goods; and
• for recurring transactions, only the mandatory charges applicable to one billing period.

Importantly, the total price must appear at least as prominently as any other pricing information. Businesses could no longer advertise an artificially low base price while revealing mandatory charges only during checkout.

What Counts as a Mandatory Fee?

The proposal adopts an expansive definition.

Mandatory fees include not only charges that consumers literally cannot avoid, but also:

• fees that are not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and
• separate charges for aspects of a product or service that a reasonable consumer would expect to be included in the advertised purchase.

DCWP explains that this language is intended to prevent businesses from artificially unbundling components of a product or service solely to advertise a lower headline price. 

Additional Disclosures Required Before Payment

Even after advertising the total price, businesses would still be required—before the consumer consents to purchase—to provide:

• the nature, purpose, and amount of any charges excluded from the advertised total price (such as optional add-ons or shipping);
• an identification of the good or service to which each charge relates; and
• the final amount the consumer must pay.

The final amount payable must be disclosed at least as prominently as the advertised total price. 

Prohibition on Misrepresenting Fees

The proposal goes beyond disclosure.

It would expressly prohibit businesses from misrepresenting:

• the nature of any fee;
• its purpose;
• its amount;
• whether it is refundable; or
• the product or service for which the fee is charged.

This provision could provide DCWP with an additional enforcement tool in cases where businesses label charges as “service fees,” “processing fees,” or fees for similar assessments that the DCWP could allege do not accurately describe the underlying purpose of the charge. 

Extensive Recordkeeping Obligations

The proposal also imposes significant recordkeeping requirements.

Businesses would have to maintain documentation sufficient to establish the basis for every fee or charge, including its:

• nature;
• purpose;
• amount; and
• refundability.

Those records would have to be produced upon DCWP’s request.

Perhaps most notably, the proposal provides that a business’s failure to maintain or produce required records creates a presumption that the facts alleged by DCWP are true. That evidentiary presumption could materially strengthen the agency’s enforcement position during administrative proceedings. 

Broad Applicability—But Important Preemption Questions

The proposal would apply to anyone offering, displaying, or advertising goods or services in New York City or to New York City consumers.

Recognizing that numerous federal and state laws already regulate pricing disclosures in certain industries, DCWP expressly states that the rule does not apply where federal or state law preempts municipal regulation.

Interestingly, the agency specifically identifies numerous federal statutes and regulations it reviewed in evaluating potential preemption issues, including:

• the Truth in Lending Act;
• the Truth in Savings Act;
• the Electronic Fund Transfer Act;
• the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act;
• the FTC’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees;
• the Telemarketing Sales Rule; and
• various federal mortgage advertising regulations.

DCWP specifically invites public comment regarding whether additional federal or state laws may conflict with the proposal. That invitation suggests the agency anticipates that preemption may become one of the principal issues during the rulemaking process. 

Civil Penalties

Violations would carry significant penalties:

• First violation: $525
• Second violation: $1,050 
• Third and subsequent violations: $3,500

The proposal does not provide a cure period before penalties may be imposed.

Comparison to the FTC’s Junk Fee Rule

Although both the FTC’s Junk Fee Rule and the New York City proposal seek to eliminate hidden mandatory fees through “all-in pricing,” the two regulations differ in several important respects.

First, the FTC’s rule is much narrower in scope. It applies only to live-event ticketing and short-term lodging, requiring sellers to disclose the total price—including all mandatory fees—up front whenever prices are advertised. The FTC deliberately confined the rule to industries where it found substantial evidence of widespread deceptive pricing practices.

The New York City proposal, by contrast, is industry-neutral. It would apply broadly to virtually all consumer goods and services offered or advertised in New York City unless another federal or state law preempts municipal regulation.

Second, the New York City proposal contains several provisions that go beyond the FTC rule. In addition to requiring disclosure of the total price, as noted above, it would:

• prohibit misrepresenting the nature, purpose, amount, or refundability of fees;
• impose detailed recordkeeping requirements regarding every fee charged;
• create an evidentiary presumption against businesses that fail to maintain or produce required records; and
• require disclosure of the nature and purpose of excluded charges before the consumer completes the transaction.

The proposal therefore reflects a more expansive regulatory approach than the FTC rule, combining disclosure obligations with affirmative compliance and documentation requirements.

Finally, unlike the FTC rule, which is enforced under the Federal Trade Commission Act, New York City’s proposal would be enforced through the City’s consumer protection laws and civil penalty structure. Businesses operating nationally therefore could find themselves subject to overlapping federal, state, and municipal pricing requirements.

What Does This Mean for Consumer Financial Services Companies?

At first glance, many banks, credit unions, fintech companies, mortgage lenders, and other financial services providers may conclude that the proposal has little relevance because the Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposed Rule never mentions loans or extensions of credit or savings accounts or checking accounts and because pricing disclosures for consumer financial products are already governed extensively by federal law.

Indeed, many core disclosures required under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Truth in Savings Act (TISA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and their implementing regulations prescribe in considerable detail how fees, finance charges, annual percentage rates, closing costs, and other charges must be disclosed. National banks and federal savings associations also benefit in many instances from federal preemption principles under the National Bank Act and the Home Owners’ Loan Act.

Nevertheless, financial services companies should not assume that the proposal is irrelevant. As noted above, the proposal notes that the DCWP has reviewed laws that other jurisdictions have exempted or that the FTC identified as potentially overlapping and expressly requests comment regarding “whether these laws – or any other federal or state laws – would conflict with the requirements of” the proposal.

Many advertisements, websites, mobile applications, and marketing materials contain pricing representations that fall outside the technical disclosure requirements of TILA or other federal statutes. Examples could include:

• loan origination or processing fees promoted in marketing materials;
• convenience fees or expedited payment fees;
• debt collection payment processing charges;
• subscription fees for financial management products;
• account maintenance fees;
• overdraft-related service offerings;
• fintech platform fees; and
• various optional service packages offered in connection with consumer financial products.

To the extent these charges are advertised to New York City consumers, businesses will need to analyze whether the proposed rule would apply and whether they would constitute mandatory fees under the City’s broad definition and whether federal law would preempt application of the municipal rule.

The proposal also raises operational questions for financial institutions. Institutions that have developed advertising and disclosure practices designed to comply with comprehensive federal disclosure regimes may now need to determine whether separate New York City-specific advertising standards must be incorporated into their compliance management systems. That could require revisions to digital marketing, online account-opening platforms, mobile applications, call-center scripts, and internal recordkeeping procedures.

These issues are likely to receive considerable attention during the comment period. Industry participants may urge DCWP to clarify the scope of its preemption provision and to avoid creating inconsistent disclosure obligations for products already subject to detailed federal regulation.

Observations

The proposed rule is notable both for its breadth and for its potential implications well beyond New York City. While the FTC’s junk fee rule focuses on particular industries and practices, New York City is attempting to establish a generally applicable municipal pricing standard covering virtually every consumer transaction.

If adopted, businesses that market goods or services to New York City consumers—even those headquartered elsewhere—will need to carefully evaluate their advertising, pricing displays, checkout processes, fee disclosures, and recordkeeping practices to determine whether they comply with the City’s expansive “all-in pricing” requirements.

Financial services companies should pay particular attention to the proposal’s discussion of federal preemption. Although DCWP acknowledges that many federally regulated disclosures may fall outside the scope of the rule, the precise contours of those exemptions are likely to become a significant issue during both the rulemaking process and any subsequent enforcement actions.

Given the proposal’s broad reach and its potential interaction with existing federal consumer financial protection laws, this is a rulemaking that warrants close attention from both financial services providers and other businesses doing business with New York City consumers.

Another issue worth watching is whether other cities follow New York City’s lead. In recent years, New York City has frequently served as a policy laboratory for consumer protection initiatives. If this proposal is adopted, other municipalities may consider similar “all-in pricing” requirements, potentially creating a patchwork of local disclosure obligations for companies operating nationwide. That possibility underscores the importance of seeking clear guidance on the proposal’s preemption provisions before the rule becomes final.

Only a handful of states have enacted comprehensive, economy-wide junk fee statutes comparable to the Federal Trade Commission’s Junk Fees Rule. They include:

• California (the most comprehensive) – SB 478
• Minnesota – Omnibus Commerce Bill
• Colorado (through deceptive pricing provisions of Consumer Protection Act Amendments)

These laws generally require businesses to advertise the total price consumers must pay, excluding only taxes, shipping charges, and certain government-imposed fees.

Many state attorneys general have construed their UDAP statutes as encompassing junk fees and, at least one Attorney General (New Jersey) has recently published enforcement guidance about junk fees.