Junk Fees

Online comments: 5

• Efstathios Georgiou

  I support DCWP’s proposed junk fee rule (§5-16). Hidden fees cost NYC families an estimated $3,200/year, and this rule is a needed step toward transparent pricing. I urge DCWP to: (1) strictly enforce the “mandatory fee” definition so businesses can’t disguise expected charges as “optional”; (2) apply total-price disclosure equally to third-party platforms and apps, not just company websites; (3) consider raising penalty amounts to deter high-volume businesses; and (4) keep the recordkeeping/burden-shifting provision, which is essential for real enforcement. Thank you for protecting consumers from hidden fees.

  —

  Comment added July 9, 2026 10:29am

• Jacob Quinn

  Love this, companies love to nickel and dime their customers nowadays. Any laws and protections from that I say Amen!

  Comment added July 9, 2026 6:16pm

• Anonymous

  As an NYC resident, consumer, and renter, I fully support DCWP’s efforts to prohibit junk fees. It’s increasingly common for renters to encounter mandatory amenity fees, unavoidable utility sub-metering fees, and even electronic ACH payment convenience fees that are not factored into the headline monthly rent figure (even if separately disclosed later) and thus discourage proper consumer price comparison against total monthly rent.
  Similarly, internet service providers service NYC will often tease a promo monthly rate for new customers, but then add a substantial installation fee at check-out to be able to continue. Much of these practices are the equivalent of a modern-day bait and switch.
  The proposed rules will hopefully put an end to these practices across all forms of applicable advertising in NYC. I will join other commenter(s) in suggesting that DCWP raise the proposed fines for Second/Third violations/defaults in pursuit of an appropriately effective deterrent effect.

  Comment added July 14, 2026 10:07am

• S

  Great idea and should definitely include bills from utilities and phone service, especially Verizon.

  Comment added July 15, 2026 12:24pm

• Anonymous

  I respectfully request clarification regarding the scope of the proposed rule. Specifically, it is unclear whether the rule is intended to apply solely to transactions for the purchase of consumer goods or services or whether it also extends to business-to-business advertising and marketing involving goods and services that are not purchased primarily for personal, household, or family use.

  As drafted, the proposal broadly refers to the advertising, display, and offering of goods and services, but it does not expressly distinguish between consumer and commercial transactions. This creates uncertainty for businesses that advertise or market products and services exclusively to other businesses.

  If the Department intends the rule to apply only to consumer transactions, I encourage it to expressly state that limitation in the final rule. Conversely, if the Department intends the rule to reach business-to-business transactions, additional guidance regarding the scope and application of the rule to commercial transactions would be helpful.

  Thank you.

  Comment added July 17, 2026 9:36pm