H.B. 29 Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see how your own representative and senator voted and where they spoke.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and one-line summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.

What the bill does

This bill modifies provisions relating to unfair and deceptive pricing.

Hearings and debates

• Jan 20, 2026 House floor debate (day 1)▶ Watch
  Transcript (67 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)59:30

     House Bill 29, unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments by Representative Clancy. Representative Clancy.

  2. Rep. Tyler Clancy59:40

     Thank you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Today we heard, uh, quite articulately about how a key issue for Utah families across both the Wasatch Front and rural Utah is the cost of living. And House Bill 29 affords us an opportunity to find a area of bipartisan support. And this is about tackling junk fees. Junk fees is defined as a mandatory fee that is not disclosed upfront. So this isn't a utility fee where you are charged based on how much you use, and it's not a fee where you're choosing a different option when you're at the point of sale. These are about hidden fees that, that really mask the transparent cost to do business and to purchase things for consumers. For example, ticket fees. How many of you have looked at, uh, to go to a concert or to a sporting event for, uh, let's say $75? But at the time that you're checking out that price is inflated to $125, not including tax, not including maybe things that you may have added, but these are fees that are mandatory. You don't, it's not opt-in or opt out. That is deceptive pricing. President Trump's Federal Trade Commission has actually taken this on at the federal level. They have given states guidance to how to regulate and look at these junk fees. So at the end of the day, when we're talking about the cost of living for some, for maybe something for about concert tickets, that could just be a couple dollars in your, in your pocket that wasn't there before. But when you look at families who are scraping paycheck to paycheck, working to make ends meet, take an apartment rental, for example, if they're advertised, let's say $1,200 for an apartment, and this family knows that that's what they can fit in their family budget, only to find that after several weeks doing application fees, taking the time and the sweat equity to get to the point where they're ready to move in. And now all of a sudden that advertised price is actually inflated by maybe three or $400. This, these are situations where you can put families in really precarious positions where we shouldn't have to deal with that. So House Bill 29 is very simple. The price you see is the price you pay. This isn't a, it's prohibiting someone from charging certain fees, but we have to be transparent with consumers and disclose it upfront. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to answer any questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:02:06

     Thank you, Representative Clancy discussion to the bill Representative Ballard.

  4. Rep. Melissa G. Ballard1:02:11

     You, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill for a number of reasons. There are multiple Utah businesses who have really tried to set this standard of eliminating hidden fees. I compliment the automobile, uh, industry who has been working for, uh, a few years to be able to have no hidden fees across the industry. It's mostly there for, uh, uh, for this culture change. But if you go to restaurants, there are many times where you look at the total and think, where did this fee come from? And it's not disclosed or online orders. I think this is really good for Utahans. This is really good for them to know where and, and what the expenses are before the final total. So appreciate the, this legislation and rise in support.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:02:55

     Thank you Representative Ballard. Further the discussion to the bill Representative Ward.

  6. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:03:01

     Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:03:03

     Representative Clancy will yield? Yes, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Ward.

  8. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:03:07

     Uh, thank you for this presentation. I see one of the things on the handout that you passed out talks about patients being charged a facility fee. Um, and typically in medicine, that is a fee that gets added on. If care takes place in what is considered a hospital that is not there. If, what if it takes place in an outpatient clinic? And it is very difficult or impossible, um, for a patient to know maybe how that building gets considered. Um, but what is the way in which you see, I mean, often when a patient walks in to receive healthcare, they don't know what the bill is gonna be ahead of time. And the bill might be, you know, what gets charged is different than what gets paid in that healthcare setting. What is the way in which you perceive this being disclosed, uh, to the patient when other, the other charge isn't being disclosed? Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  9. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:03:55

     So healthcare is a very unique, uh, price setting, uh, opportunity. This is something that once again has been looked at, uh, on the federal level from, uh, the, uh, previous administration under a Democratic president and this administration under Republican President Hospital. Transparent pricing transparency is an issue in and of itself, particularly for House Bill 29. This is about the final price being disclosed. So for example, if, if in a healthcare setting, the way that this may be, uh, implemented is when a patient, whenever they get that bill, 'cause obviously it's different than walking into a restaurant or applying for something online, that this is disclosed upfront. So, so when you get that final bill, uh, or a ledger from the healthcare services that you, um, took part in Mr. Speaker, then those fees, once again, the there people are allowed to charge those fees, but those fees will be disclosed and you're not hearing about it and getting it months later. That has to be when, when that final price is disclosed, for example, it could be different, but making sure that that is in the moment when that final price is disclosed.

  10. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:05:05

      Okay, so, so not necess, may I follow up Mr. Speaker? Just, Is that okay? Do will you yield to a series of questions?

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:05:12

      Yes, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative board.

  12. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:05:13

      Maybe just if I could repeat back. So, uh, when a patient walks in for care, it may not be disclosed at that time 'cause no one knows what the service will be. But when the bill, I guess, is then shown to the patient, then when that bill is shown, that includes the services that have been rendered, then it also at that time would include the facility fee.

  13. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:05:34

      Yes, Mr. Speaker? That is correct.

  14. Speaker (presiding)1:05:36

      Okay. Thanks. Further discussion to the bill Representative Cutler.

  15. Rep. Walter Cutler1:05:43

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions?

  16. Speaker (presiding)1:05:46

      Representative clients will yield to a series of Questions, yes, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Cutler,

  17. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:05:50

      Thank you for running this. I support this, uh, absolutely. In, in the bill. You give the, uh, consumer protection, the power of enforcement. Do you anticipate they will proactively look for, uh, these fees or this will be done on a complaint basis? Could you speak a little bit about the enforcement?

  18. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:06:10

      Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. I don't wanna speak for the division as I, I'm looking at this from a legislative remedy here. However, I know that, uh, from my experiences and, and speaking with the division, uh, it, it depends on capacity. If there's opportunity to be proactive and look into some of these things where they're seeing trends, I'm certain that that will occur. More often than not, I would, uh, I would assume that this is coming, uh, complaints from consumers who are being subject to this unfair and deceptive pricing schemes.

  19. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:06:40

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, representative Keller.

  20. Speaker (presiding)1:06:44

      Further discussion to the bill. Representative Teuscher.

  21. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:06:48

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Clancy, will you yield to a series of questions?

  22. Speaker (presiding)1:06:54

      Yes, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Tesser.

  23. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:06:56

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the question I have is, um, on, on the handout, you talk about renters often face junk fees like application fees, payment fees, even fake charges like a January fee. And I, I certainly wanna make sure that things are clear for renters. In, in the bill itself, it says a supplier, which would include a lessor, um, shall clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price when offering, displaying or advertising the price of a product. So I'm trying to understand how those fees would tie into some contract for rent. So for example, if a, uh, someone who's renting, um, a, a condo, if they say the rent is a thousand dollars per month, but then in the contract it says things like, um, you know, if you have more than 10 guests, there's going to be a fee per guest. Or if you have, uh, a spill in the carpet, we're gonna charge a minimum carpet cleaning fee or any of these fees are, is it saying that because that wasn't included in the original advertisement, they would be violating this, this, uh, this proposed legislation?

  24. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:08:02

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a fantastic question. On line six, uh, for house Bill 29, this is more specific about the mandatory ancillary charge. So these are mandatory fees. So in the examples, um, that the good representative from Salt Lake County gave about a spill, um, occupancy, different things like that, that would have to do with what the, what the consumer, uh, is choosing to do these spec This specific legislation is only germane to fees that, that the consumer does not have an option in or out. So for example, if you had a spill on the carpet or, um, you know, that was based on an action that happened, even if it's an accident. Similarly, if there's an occupancy, that consumer has a choice whether or not to abide by those rules. And so there's transparency in what that fee would be. This is only talking about fees that are built into the price. No matter what you choose, there is no opt, opt-in or opt-out provision there.

  25. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:09:00

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So just to follow up on that, let's say there's a portion of the deposit that's non-refundable, because that is not a choice that would have to be disclosed in the original advertisement for the property.

  26. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:09:15

      Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. May I, may I clarify Mr. Speaker? So a non-refundable portion of a security deposit, is that the, uh, piece in question? Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, this is, I haven't, uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I haven't looked at security deposits and how this would be pieced together, but this is more about fees that are a month to month. So for example, the January fee, these are fees that they're inflating the real cost that consumers pay every single month in the case, as we're describing Mr. Speaker, this is about making sure that that is disclosed upfront. So I I imagine that a, a security deposit would probably fall under different guidelines between renter and landlord law rather than this, which is about specifically these mandatory ancillary fees. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  27. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher1:10:09

      I, like I said before, I, I generally, uh, support these types of consumer protection, um, bills. I think it's important that consumers really understand what they're getting into when they go to purchase something. I am, I'm a little concerned of just the broadness of this language that a supplier shall clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price that for maybe some of the less, uh, savvy, uh, lessors or those selling something that they might get themselves into a situation where they might be violating this law and then be subject to a large fine. So I'm not necessarily AP opposed to legislation, but I, but I would, uh, ask the good sponsor to maybe think through that and there might be some ways to, to carve that out to just ensure that some of the, the less savvy, um, people who are engaging in commerce don't get tied into some, some sort of $2,500 fee for, for something that they didn't intend.

  28. Speaker (presiding)1:11:05

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank You Representative Teuscher. Further discussion to the bill. Let's go with Representative Gwynn McGwen. Gwen, sorry, I think Mr. Speaker of you getting there confusing.

  29. Unknown speaker1:11:17speaker not certain

      You're getting there. Uh, I rise in support of this bill. I think when it comes to consumer protection, consumer awareness of what they're paying for, when I look at, at it through the lens of hospitality per se, when you are paying so many a, a final amount and you don't know exactly what you're paying for for DoorDash, Uber Eats, um, it's helpful when we have these such policies in place to make sure that it's clear you're not paying it to the, to the restaurants, but you're paying it to the actual third party vendors. So it makes a lot more transparent and clear. I think this policy is moving in the right direction to be able to start making sure that those operators and, and, uh, service providers are being very clear on what it is they're charging for and what the end users are paying for. So I I think we are definitely moving in the right direction here.

  30. Speaker (presiding)1:12:13

      Thank you Representative Wynn. Further discussion to the bill Representative Thurston.

  31. Rep. Norman K Thurston1:12:19

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and I think just want to be clearer as to what the objective is. This is about advertised pricing bait and switch. So when I'm shopping online for a hotel and I'm comparing a night in a hotel, this one's 140, this one's 130, this one's 160. What I don't want to choose is the lowest priced one. And then show up at the hotel only to find out that there's an additional $60 resort fee or some sort of a, a amenities fee. And I said, well, I don't want that. And they'll say, sorry, that's a required fee, and they should have told me upfront that it was $180 a night and I would've picked a different hotel. So that's what it's about. So, um, I think that the simple thing is all the cases that have people have asked about with housing, with medical care, whatever, it's, when somebody advertises a price to a consumer, that price has to be what I think was mentioned earlier. The auto dealers call the all in price. This is it. The only thing that can be not included are taxes, which may not be known or, uh, trans or shipping costs, which may vary by, by location, but it's the all in price. This is what you will pay. And so I think it's a pretty simple bill in its concept and I think, uh, consumer protection will do a fantastic job of being able to enforce that idea that somebody was told a price but then charged a higher price. It's, it's a great idea for consumers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  32. Speaker (presiding)1:13:42

      Thank you Representative Thurston further discussion to the Bill School with Representative Walter.

  33. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:13:48

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions?

  34. Speaker (presiding)1:13:52

      Clancy, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes, Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Walter.

  35. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:13:55

      Thank you. Just wanna clarify how will the bill work in specific relation to, for example, credit card processing fees, which historically have been included part of the purchase, but now more and more often are an additional charge at checkout. Thank,

  36. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:14:11

      Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is something the good representative from Southern Utah has, has brought to my attention. And, um, this would be something I think that's specific to we, we would need, I would want to get clarity and guidance from the Department of Consumer Protection, but those fees are perfect Example of the types of fees that families are paying. The data shows that the average family pays about thir family of four, uh, pays about $3,200 in these mandatory fees every single year. So, um, particularly when we're looking at the, uh, credit card processing fee, um, I, I believe that would fall under the mandatory ancillary charge if, uh, unless there was an option to not pay with a credit card. That's where I could see the distinction being, uh, played there. Mr. Speaker,

  37. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:14:57

      Thank you, Ms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And will this same provision apply to governmental entities, for example, the state of Utah or school districts who are charging those same credit card processing fees as a, um, condition for purchasing a product or service? Specifically one that you can't purchase without using a credit card?

  38. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:15:19

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I think that's the, that's the key distinction that the good representative from Southern Utah identified where if there's not that ability to pay with, in, in some of these where it's a a, a check or a, a direct deposit number where it has to be this credit card, that's where I could see this coming into play. The definition of supplier is, um, uh, in the larger consumer protection code, it, uh, talks about individ, uh, the vendor who is selling to the consumer. So I, I think it would be very dependent on the situation, Mr. Speaker, about what transaction is occurring in order to gain more clarity on that.

  39. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:15:59

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just, uh, comment by saying I think that, uh, the concept that we're working with here is a good concept, but I do think that if we're going to apply this standard, that we should apply it to governmental entities as well as well, I don't think there should be an exception for a governmental entity to be able to essentially charge a hidden fee or a surcharge or some other, um, some other assessment against a, uh, uh, citizen of the state of Utah who's may be required to purchase a particular service just to operate their business without having, um, without having the same kind of disclosure and the same kind of opportunity that, uh, a consumer of a privately purchased good or service would have. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  40. Speaker (presiding)1:16:42

      Thank you, Representative Walter. Further discussion to the bill Representative MacPherson.

  41. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:16:47

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker with a sponsor yield to potentially series of questions.

  42. Speaker (presiding)1:16:52

      Representative Clancy will yield to a series of questions. Yes, Mr. Speaker, You can say no, Potentially Representative.

  43. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:17:00

      I think there was some debate there internally. Um, just, um, couple of quick, uh, questions. The, uh, so the intent of this is to get at those junk fees into, I assume, is this just for transparency or is, is there some intent that somehow that this would perhaps also lower costs?

  44. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:17:21

      That's a really good question, Mr. Speaker. Transparency, I think, inherently lowers costs when you're looking at the marketplace. And the, the example that the good representative from Provo identified earlier is an example where when a vendor is not being transparent as a price, the more market is not able to function as effectively. So theoretically, consumers are looking for the, the best deal when they go and travel, but if there are, uh, individual vendors who are not advertising truthfully or transparent transparently, then that, that market force that would apply to pricing cannot apply as effectively. So I think transparency as sunshine is the best disinfectant is, is as the old quote goes. So we're not this regulation here, this legislation that very, very closely mirrors the, uh, rule from President Trump's Federal Trade Commission, once again, is not telling vendors that they can't charge whatever price they feel is appropriate and is important to run their business. Rather, it's about transparency. And I believe, as do I know many in this body, Mr. Speaker, that transparency in the marketplace is good for, for everyone, but particularly for consumers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  45. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:18:35

      And, and I guess to, um, maybe clarify then as well, so there are some administrative penalties, there's some civil liability sort of penalties. There's some court, uh, uh, requirements here that, uh, as far as, uh, attorney's fees and such, um, as well as the, um, obviously the, the elimination of certain fees, I think it's reasonable to say too that in many circumstances that these are, um, not necessarily all going to be looking at evil, uh, slumlords that are trying to hide their fees, that there may be businesses that are looking for ways to cover their costs and, uh, perhaps are doing things in an improper way. And my concern is, is that this may, uh, as these, uh, avenues of generating revenue are disappearing, it may actually increase costs, especially when you consider the liability portions that are just gonna get passed on to the consumer in most cases. Um, so I guess I have some concern over some of the enforcement and the administrative penalties, um, pieces of this as far as it impacts the marketplace and, uh, and, and not certain that this much, uh, heavy handedness, uh, when it comes to just the goal of transparency when it includes so much punitive, uh, uh, cost related, uh, action behind it. I, I, I guess there's a question there. Is that a, uh, is that intent been considered in the effect on the marketplace? Those, uh, those, uh, burdensome sort of, uh, uh, compliance potentially costs, um, and administrative fees, penalties?

  46. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:20:16

      Thank you for the, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. I think it's also important to recognize that vendors are already subject to these rules about pricing transparency under current federal framework in the FTC. So recognizing that we're not reinventing the wheel here, this is an expectation that a recent polling show that, uh, 78% of voters across the country agree with pricing transparency. This is something where there's a lot of energy and consumers already expect the pricing to be transparent when they're looking to purchase things in the marketplace. To, uh, to your point about administrative burden, I would, I would argue Mr. Speaker, that, uh, vendors and, and people who are selling things in the marketplace are already subject to these exact same rules from the federal guidelines. This is making sure that consumers have more of a recourse here in Utah if they are subject to this types of unfair and deceptive pricing. And so that's, that's where I would say is that the rule itself is not new. This is already something that consumers expect when they are dealing in the marketplace and using their hard earned family dollars to purchase things that are important to their family. And so we're just making sure that there's actual compliance with the law, and this falls into the same category and the same, uh, approach as other consumer protection pieces in section 13 of, of Utah Code. Mr. Speaker.

  47. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:21:38

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess, uh, to follow up on that, then, does that mean that this would, uh, double the potential penalties that a, uh, a vendor may face then, both at the state and, uh, in addition now to the federal penalties?

  48. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:21:51

      Not necessarily Mr. Speaker, this is about, as was asked by the good representative from Davis County about enforcement. So being proactive or responding to complaints, it would take a consumer a significant amount of time to file a successful complaint with the Federal Trade Commission at the federal level, even a very clear and important claim, recognizing that the federal government takes a long time to do so. And so this is a, making sure that Utah consumers have that avenue, have that outlet of protection and making sure that we are, we're not leaving people to go up the, the food chain of the federal government to say and making sure that they have that recourse here in Utah. Thank you. And, and just to clarify then, then, so the avenue for pursuing this in state, uh, through administrative process or through the courts, is available under this bill, as well as still the federal route? Both could be pursued simultaneously. One doesn't exclude the other That, that is my understanding, Mr. Speaker. I, I have not, uh, there's no provision in here that would prohibit someone, but recognizing that usually the element of government that's most close to the consumer is gonna be the one that individuals feel more confident in reaching out to and, and being dealt with appropriately.

  49. Rep. Matt MacPherson1:23:12

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  50. Speaker (presiding)1:23:15

      Thank you, Representative MacPherson. Further discussion to the bill Representative Hansen.

  51. Rep. Leah Hansen1:23:20

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a question or two series? Maybe

  52. Speaker (presiding)1:23:26

      Representative Klancher will yield to a series of questions. Yes. Mr. Speaker? Yes. Representative Hansen.

  53. Rep. Leah Hansen1:23:31

      Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Um, is inflate defined in this? Like how is inflate defined here?

  54. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:23:41

      It's, it's a good question, Mr. Speaker Inflate is were, when we talk about inflating prices, that's just, we're talking about the second order effects of these types of pricing schemes. So this, uh, inflate is not defined in this legislation. Mr. Speaker?

  55. Rep. Leah Hansen1:24:01

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, may I ask another question? Mr. Speaker?

  56. Speaker (presiding)1:24:06speaker not certain

      You, you, he gave permission to a series of questions, so you Thank you, sir.

  57. Rep. Leah Hansen1:24:10

      Um, so if the, um, the document doesn't say inflate, but it says the supplier may not inflate a shipping charge. So even if they guessed the shipping would be, say $10 and it ended up being $8, they could potentially be fined $2,500.

  58. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:24:28speaker not certain

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker, would you be able to re restate the, the question, Mr. Speaker?

  59. Rep. Leah Hansen1:24:33

      Maybe I could probably try to be more clear. Mr. Speaker, um, does this apply to small business owners like those who are just trying to ship something, they probably will, um, charge high for shipping, but it's not high in shipping, and then, uh, because it wasn't honest or because it was inflated, would it be, um, would they be charged that amount?

  60. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:25:02

      Thank you. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly, I think what's important to note here is that when we're talking about unfair and deceptive pricing, which is this, so this would be that the, the vendor understands and is very clear about what the shipping charges, what the government charges, IE government fees and taxes, um, or a charge to the supplier. They understand what their cost is, they've built it into their, to their bottom line, but then they're advertising that shipping cost that they know to be, to your example, $8. They're advertising that shipping cost to be 10, 12, $15. Once again, it's really just about transparency, making sure that consumers have the, the knowledge and the information to make educated decisions in the marketplace.

  61. Rep. Leah Hansen1:25:48

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  62. Speaker (presiding)1:25:52

      Thank you, Representative Hansen.

  63. Rep. Jason B. Kyle1:25:53

      Representative Kyle, Mr. Speaker, I call the question

  64. Speaker (presiding)1:25:58

      Question's been called, which has the effective ending debate. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes debate has ended. Back to you or back to you.

  65. Speaker (presiding)1:26:10

      Representative Clancy for summation.

  66. Rep. Tyler Clancy1:26:12

      Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be extremely brief recognizing that once again as we talk about the cost of living in Utah and the cost of living here, uh, in the United States, this is an opportunity where transparency can lead out. This is not government regulation saying that you can't charge certain fees. A business couldn't charge the price that they feel is appropriate. This is just about making sure that consumers can make educated decisions when they're using their hard earned money to make choices for their family. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  67. Speaker (presiding)1:26:43

      Thank you. Representative Clancy Voting will now be open on HB 29. Seeing all present, having voted voting is now closed. P 29 passed this body with 70 yes votes, three no votes will be sent to the Senate for its consider consideration.

All votes

• 70-3-2House floor · House/ passed 3rd reading · Jan 20, 2026Roll call

Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.