Ancillary Fee Rules Rewound: What Travel Advisors Need to Know

Reduced to its essence, air transportation is a product produced and sold by airlines, but one that frequently involves travel advisors.

The reasons for advisor involvement are clear: air travel is expensive, complicated, and requires matching air products with other travel components. It also involves difficult consumer choices and post-sale issues that advisors are uniquely positioned to resolve.

However, selling air travel became significantly more complex when airlines introduced—and then aggressively expanded—ancillary fees. The marginal revenue from these fees quickly became a powerful attraction for both carriers and advisors alike.

Two Authorities, Conflicting Rules

Inevitably, this complexity caught the attention of regulators. Today, the travel industry must answer to two distinct legal authorities regarding ancillary fees:

1. The Department of Transportation (DOT): The DOT regularly updates rules governing fee disclosures under its authority in 49 U.S.C. § 41712.
2. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC holds “concurrent jurisdiction” over airlines (though not travel advisors) under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC typically enforces this via orders against individual violators.

Recently, these two agencies issued three separate decisions over a two-day span. Unfortunately, they appear to be based on fundamentally opposed principles.

The FTC Hammer: $35 Million Penalty for Hopper

First, the FTC issued a negotiated consent order in FTC v. Hopper (USA), Inc.

Hopper agreed to pay $35 million to settle allegations that it unfairly charged hidden fees and misrepresented total pricing. Specifically, the FTC alleged that despite promises of “no hidden fees,” Hopper added pre-selected, optional “Tip” and VIP Support fees without explicit consumer consent.

The FTC’s detailed account of these practices makes one thing clear: when it came to enforcement, it was no contest.

The DOT Actions: A Tangle of New Rules

Meanwhile, over July 1 and July 2, 2026, the DOT published two final rules and a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The combined impact is bound to create confusion.

Here is how the three DOT actions break down:

• 1. Formal Hearing Rules (91 Fed. Reg. 39872): This final rule revises 2022 hearing procedures, requiring neutral hearing officers and formal findings of fact in enforcement cases. While controversial, this rule mainly targets airlines and advisors facing active enforcement proceedings—a small group that will likely rely on legal counsel to navigate the details.
• 2. Disclosure Flexibility & The Return to 2011 Standards (91 Fed. Reg. 40368): Entitled Increasing Flexibility on Disclosure of Airline Ancillary Fees, this rule eliminates the 2024 disclosure requirements and restores the DOT’s 2011 standard.
• 3. Proposed Price Advertising Rules (91 Fed. Reg. 39932): This NPRM, titled Enhancing Flexibility of Air Fare Price Advertising, tackles what constitutes a “prominent” display of price information.

Understanding the Shift Back to 2011 Rules

The sudden rollback of the 2024 ancillary fee rules stems from a procedural error: the DOT failed to allow airlines to comment on an economic study used to justify the 2024 regulations.

After the Fifth Circuit vacated the 2024 rules, the DOT determined the court’s decision was fatal to the entire package, legally restoring the original 2011 framework (now codified in 14 CFR Parts 259 and 399).

Under these restored 2011 standards:

• Airline baggage fee increases or allowance changes must appear on carrier websites for at least three months.
• Airlines and travel advisors must disclose on the first fare screen that baggage fees may apply, with instructions on how to find them.
• E-ticket confirmations must detail free baggage allowances as well as fees for carry-ons and first/second checked bags.
• Airlines must list all ancillary fees in a single location on their website (non-baggage fees may be listed as price ranges).

What Counts as “Prominent”?

The DOT’s new NPRM on price advertising leaves critical questions open—including the exact definition of “prominent” display.

While typeface size matters, the DOT noted that it isn’t the only factor, stating that if an ad breaks out tax and non-tax components, the total price must appear “at least as prominently as the most prominent component.”

If adopted, this proposal will rescind all prior guidance documents on the Full Fare Rule. However, the DOT explicitly noted that “there is nothing inherently unfair or deceptive in having components of a fare be displayed ‘prominently’ so long as the total price is just as prominent.”

What Travel Advisors Should Do Now

This NPRM is unlikely to be the DOT’s final word on the matter. Further regulatory shifts are almost certainly on the horizon.

In the meantime, any travel advisor displaying price information should:

• Carefully review the restored 2011 rules and implement them with close attention to the DOT’s intent.
• Document the reasoning behind your display choices.
• Consult legal counsel if any compliance requirements are unclear.
• Reach out directly to the DOT’s Office of Aviation Consumer Protection for guidance where needed.