Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Price Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds bill to require clear display of purchase price amid industry concerns
Summary
Representative Hatcher presented House Bill 13 24 to require sellers to display the purchase price separate from optional add-ons; the committee heard testimony from housing and banking groups about vagueness and possible litigation risk and voted to hold the bill for further drafting.
Representative Hatcher told the Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development committee that House Bill 13 24 aims to make advertised purchase prices clearer for consumers by requiring sellers to display the item or service price distinctly from optional extras (excluding taxes and government fees), citing examples from car dealerships, ticketing platforms and online hotel listings.
"What we're trying to do is make sure people know exactly what they're paying for," Hatcher said, describing cases where advertised prices don’t reflect add-ons that appear only at checkout. She pointed to ticketing services and online checkout flows as examples where total costs can grow by 25 to 35 percent between the advertised price and the final charge.
Industry witnesses urged caution. Brian Spalding, president and CEO of the Indiana Apartment Association, said the rental sector commonly uses ‘‘starting at’’ language because a final price depends on unit, lease length and options; he testified the bill ‘‘would make it virtually impossible for our industry to advertise prices’’ without further clarity. Connor Wong, representing financial institutions, expressed concern that the language is vague for financial services; he cited overdraft fees as an example where per-incident fees could aggregate, creating uncertainty about how to display a ‘‘purchase price’’ for services used over time.
Members asked detailed questions about where and how prices must be displayed (ads, menus, online) and whether commonly displayed surcharges — for example, a posted 3 percent card fee or an automatic gratuity for large parties — would need to be shown in the advertised price. Representative Hatcher said the intent is not to penalize transparent notices (such as menu disclaimers or counter placards) but to prevent bait-and-switch advertising where add-ons are omitted until checkout.
After testimony and discussion the committee agreed to hold HB 13 24 to allow further drafting, stakeholder engagement and clarification of definitions and scope to reduce litigation risk, particularly for sectors with dynamic pricing.
The committee did not vote on the bill’s merits; members said they intend to reconcile industry concerns and return with clarified language.
