The charge did not appear as a surprise line on a credit card statement. It appeared on the final booking screen of a travel app, already selected, in a spot a customer would only find by scrolling down. By the time the traveler swiped to book, the total had grown by a “Tip” and a fee for something called VIP Support, and the Federal Trade Commission says most people never agreed to either one.
On July 2 the agency filed a complaint and a proposed settlement against the companies behind the Hopper travel apps, with a $35 million figure attached to it. The number is real, the case is real, and the money is not moving yet. Understanding the difference is what protects a reader here.
How the fees got onto the checkout screen
According to the FTC’s complaint, until mid-2023 consumers ready to buy saw a screen showing a “total price” and a Swipe to Book button that failed to adequately disclose that Tip and VIP Support charges would be added, with those supposedly optional fees pre-selected and hidden on a portion of the screen that appeared only if the customer scrolled. Since 2023, the agency alleges, the app has continued to fail to disclose that Tip fees are optional at all.
The complaint quotes the people on both sides of the transaction. One customer wrote that the company had “snuck that in on the final screen at the bottom and opted me in.” An employee wrote internally that “we’re tricking users.” The FTC also alleges the company’s own internal testing showed that if the fees were disclosed properly and left unselected by default, most consumers would decline them. Two other services draw allegations: VIP Support, marketed as reaching customer service instantly or within minutes when many buyers say they could not reach an agent at all, and Price Freeze, which the FTC says failed to disclose that the price was protected only up to a certain amount and only if the booking remained available, and whose fee was not applied to the booking as promised.
Free retirement updates: Scams move fast, but their pressure tactics leave patterns. The free Retirement Shield newsletter explains the newest warnings and the practical tell to watch. Get the free newsletter.
A proposed order is not a payment
The FTC’s wording is precise, and it is worth repeating exactly: under the proposed order, Hopper must pay $35 million, which will be used for consumer redress. The agency also states the governing condition in its own note on the case, that stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the district court judge. The Commission voted 2-0 to file both the complaint and the stipulated proposed order against Hopper Inc., a Canadian company, and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc.
The FTC’s case page for the matter, filed as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-13058 in the District of Massachusetts, was last updated on July 2, 2026 and shows the case status as pending, with a timeline that ends at the July 2 complaint and proposed order. Nothing on that record shows a judge has signed anything. Until that happens, the $35 million is a term in a document, not a fund.
There is no claim to file, which makes any Hopper payout message a red flag
This is the practical heart of the story. No claims process has been announced, no per-traveler amount has been calculated or published, and no deadline exists. The FTC maintains a page listing every active refund program it manages, with the administrator and phone number for each one, and Hopper does not appear on it.
That absence is the tell. Announcements of this kind reliably draw impostors within days, and travel bookings are an easy hook because so many households have used an app to book a flight or a room. The FTC’s own warning on that page is unambiguous: the agency will never threaten anyone, say a person must transfer money to get a refund, or promise a prize, and anything doing so is a scam. So an email, text or call offering to process a Hopper refund, verify a booking, or collect a fee to release a payment is not the FTC and not a settlement administrator. There is nothing to sign up for right now, which means there is nothing a legitimate party would need to contact a consumer about.
The lodging fee rule behind the case
The complaint alleges Hopper violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the agency’s Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule. That rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 464, took effect on May 12, 2025 and prohibits bait-and-switch pricing and other tactics used to obscure total prices and fees for live-event tickets and short-term lodging, covering third-party platforms, resellers and travel agents as well as the seller itself.
Its requirements explain why the checkout screen matters legally and not just morally. A covered business has to disclose upfront the total price a customer will pay, including mandatory charges it knows about and can calculate, display that total more prominently than other pricing information, and describe honestly what a fee is for rather than hiding behind vague labels. A price that only becomes accurate after a customer scrolls is the specific behavior the rule was written to stop.
What the order would require beyond the money
If the court approves it, the proposed order does more than move $35 million. The FTC says the company would be prohibited from misrepresenting any fees and required to clearly and conspicuously disclose fees and charges, the total price of any goods or services, and the final amount of payment for any transaction. For a traveler, that is the durable part of the outcome: the checkout screen changes for every future booking, whether or not a given customer ever sees a dollar of the redress. The FTC’s case page remains the place where a signed order, and any refund program that follows it, would actually show up.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor. Figures are linked to their primary sources; where a claim could not be verified from the public record, we say so.
More Financial Reading
