New Enforcement Initiative Signals Increased Scrutiny of Consumer Pricing Practices
Businesses that sell goods or services to consumers in New Jersey should take note of a significant new consumer-protection initiative announced by Governor Mikie Sherrill and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. Together, the Governor and Attorney General have launched a coordinated effort to identify, regulate, and enforce against so-called “junk fees” across a wide range of industries.
On June 15, 2026, Governor Sherrill issued Executive Order No. 19 directing executive branch agencies to identify and evaluate “junk fees” within the industries they regulate and recommend measures to eliminate such fees. At the same time, the Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs issued a detailed Enforcement Statement explaining how existing New Jersey law, particularly the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”)—already provides tools to challenge many fee-related practices.
The message from Trenton is clear: consumer pricing transparency is becoming an enforcement priority. Companies that charge fees in connection with consumer transactions should review their pricing, disclosure, marketing, and contracting practices to ensure compliance with New Jersey law.
What Are “Junk Fees”?
Although the term “junk fee” has become increasingly common in public policy discussions, there is no single universal definition. Generally speaking, regulators use the term to refer to fees that are hidden, unexpected, misleadingly disclosed, excessive, or provide little value to consumers. Examples frequently cited by regulators include:
- Hotel resort fees;
- Service fees;
- Administrative fees;
- Convenience fees;
- Certain application fees;
- Termination fees;
- Add-on products and services;
- Certain rental-related fees;
- Pay-to-pay fees; and
- Other charges that are not clearly disclosed as part of the advertised price.
The focus on junk fees is not unique to New Jersey. In recent years, federal and state regulators have increasingly scrutinized fee practices across numerous industries. For example, in December 2024, the Federal Trade Commission adopted its Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rule targeting hidden pricing practices in the hotel, short-term lodging, and live-event ticketing industries. Several states have also enacted or proposed legislation requiring “all-in” pricing or otherwise restricting the use of hidden fees.
Although the imposition of junk fees generally is not considered to be a violation of the antitrust laws, many view the ability to force such costs on consumers as an indication of market power. For example, in the federal government’s case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the Department of Justice linked the defendants’ ability to force additional fees at checkout to the defendants’ market power.
The New Jersey Initiative: Key Takeaways for Businesses
How New Jersey Defines “Junk Fees”
Executive Order No. 19 defines “Junk Fees” as:
“hidden, surprise, or excessively overpriced fees, including those associated with a good or service that provides little or no benefit to the consumer.”
The Attorney General’s Enforcement Statement adopts a similarly broad approach, describing junk fees as:
“hidden, surprise, or excessively overpriced fees, including those associated with a good or service that provides little or no benefit to the consumer, or fees that are otherwise not transparently disclosed to the consumer.”
Notably, the definition is not limited to fees that are entirely undisclosed. The Attorney General’s guidance suggests that regulators may scrutinize fees that are disclosed but are excessive, misleadingly presented, bundled into transactions in confusing ways, or associated with products providing minimal consumer value.
The Initiative Relies on Existing Consumer Protection Laws
Unlike some state laws that create a new statutory prohibition on junk fees, New Jersey’s initiative largely relies on existing authority under the Consumer Fraud Act.
The Enforcement Statement emphasizes that the CFA prohibits:
“the act, use or employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact…”
According to the Attorney General, a variety of fee-related practices may violate the CFA, including:
- “Drip pricing” or “bait-and-switch” pricing, where mandatory fees are added later in the purchasing process;
- Failure to disclose mandatory fees upfront;
- Use of website or app “dark patterns” that obscure fee disclosures;
- Misrepresentations regarding the purpose, recipient, or necessity of fees;
- Omissions regarding material information about fees;
- Unbundling prices into numerous separate mandatory charges;
- Excessively high fees that provide little or no consumer value; and
- Practices that manipulate consumer consent to fee-based products or services.
The Enforcement Statement repeatedly emphasizes that pricing transparency and meaningful consumer consent are central concerns for regulators.
When Does the Initiative Take Effect?
The Executive Order took effect immediately upon issuance on June 15, 2026. The Order signals immediate enforcement attention and lays the groundwork for future regulatory action.
Businesses should not wait for additional regulations before evaluating their practices. The Attorney General’s Enforcement Statement makes clear that New Jersey believes many junk-fee practices are already prohibited under existing law.
Enforcement Risks and Potential Penalties
The principal enforcement mechanism is the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Enforcement Statement notes that any person who violates the CFA may face:
“potential civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation for the first offense and up to $20,000 for every subsequent offense.”
In addition to governmental enforcement actions, the CFA provides a private right of action that allows consumers to bring suit and seek remedies including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs where they can establish an ascertainable loss resulting from unlawful conduct. Businesses should therefore view junk-fee compliance as presenting both regulatory and litigation risk.
New Jersey Is Part of a Larger Enforcement Trend
Businesses should not assume this initiative is an isolated state effort. Across the country, state attorneys general, the FTC, the CFPB, and other regulators have devoted increasing attention to pricing transparency, hidden fees, add-on products, and consumer consent practices.
Companies operating nationally should therefore consider whether their New Jersey compliance review should be part of a broader review of consumer pricing practices across jurisdictions.
Conclusion
New Jersey’s new anti-junk-fee initiative represents a significant escalation in regulatory scrutiny of consumer pricing practices. Consumer-facing businesses should take this opportunity to review fee structures, advertising materials, checkout processes, consumer disclosures, contracts, and online purchasing experiences to ensure that fees are transparent, justified, and compliant with the Consumer Fraud Act.
The Antitrust attorneys at Mandelbaum Barrett PC are here to help companies with questions about their fee practices or potential exposure under the Consumer Fraud Act regarding compliance strategies and risk mitigation measures.