The Attorney General of Massachusetts recently promulgated rules expanding the scope of its enforcement against alleged “junk fees,” including business practices for consumer subscriptions, renewals, and recurring charge cancellations. These disclosure regulations go beyond the Federal Trade Commission’s more focused “junk fees” rule promulgated late last year, targeting only the hospitality and live event industries.
This rule is a good example of enhanced enforcement by state attorneys general in the face of federal regulatory and enforcement rollback, particularly in the consumer protection space under their authority to prosecute allegedly unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP).
The Rule signals enhanced enforcement by a well-resourced attorney general’s office that has historically led nationally on consumer protection issues and can take advantage of a broad reading of jurisdiction and venue under Massachusetts law. The Attorney General of Massachusetts’s (Mass AG’s) focus on “junk fees” adds yet one more state to the growing list of state attorneys general who focus on this issue under their UDAP statute at a time of federal regulatory rollback.
State UDAP laws, common to all 56 states and territories, generally provide for per-violation penalties based on a metric such as advertising impressions and permit pre-complaint investigation, including document production, investigative hearings (depositions), and written questions (interrogatories), while the target has no discovery rights until and unless a complaint is later filed.
The Mass AG’s new Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule (the Rule),[1] effective as of September 2, 2025, is modeled on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) recently promulgated junk fees rule[2] and click-to-cancel rule. The Rule interprets UDAP under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law (CPL)[3] to include inadequate price disclosures and to apply to trial offers, automatic renewals, recurring charges, and subscriptions. It also requires consumer websites and applications to ensure easy access to cancel recurring charges or subscriptions. Under the Rule, businesses must clearly disclose the following to Massachusetts consumers:
Whenever pricing information is presented to a consumer, businesses also must display the total price of a product more prominently than any other pricing information. The Rule further expands disclosure requirements for trial offers and automatic renewals. Under the Rule, when presenting a trial offer, a business must disclose clearly
Lastly, for recurring charges or subscriptions, businesses must disclose clearly upon enrollment
Once a consumer has enrolled, the Rule requires businesses to implement simple processes for consumers to cancel subscriptions and recurring charges, including allowing the consumer to cancel a subscription through the same website in which the consumer enrolled. Businesses also must provide advance written notices regarding subscriptions and recurring charges, including details of when the charge will renew, how much the consumer will be charged and when, and how the consumer may cancel.
A violation of the Rule is a deceptive practice under the CPL,[4] which provides for injunctive relief in addition to actual and statutory damages. The Rule does not apply retroactively and goes into effect on September 2, 2025.
The reach of the Rule is significant. Under the CPL, businesses that engage in “trade” or “commerce” within the state are subject to the jurisdiction of the Mass AG and must comply with the CPL and the Rule as to Massachusetts consumers. Thus, if a business advertises, offers for sale, rent, or lease, or distributes services or property within the state, including to consumers in Massachusetts, it must comply with the Rule and the CPL.[5]
The Rule comes on the heels of the FTC’s junk fees rule targeting “drip pricing” practices in the short-term lodging and live events industries. Earlier last year, the FTC also finalized its “click-to-cancel” rule requiring businesses subject to its authority to establish equivalency between the ease of signing up and canceling subscriptions, memberships, and other recurring charges. Notably, the FTC’s rule does not preempt state law, particularly the authority of state attorneys general to enforce state laws, including those that are more restrictive than federal law.
But there is no general agreement that rules are required in order for an attorney general to act under state law. For instance, several states, including Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and the District of Columbia, already have acted directly on alleged “junk fee” matters under their respective UDAP authority. On the other hand, in 2024, California handed its attorney general a new “junk fee” statute.
Additionally, some state laws, including Massachusetts, authorize, or courts have interpreted as authorizing, private rights of action, an enticing target for plaintiff’s class action lawyers. Some states have executive branch agencies, such as California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and New York’s Department of Financial Services, which have both rulemaking and enforcement authority.
Here, the Mass AG acted independently of the legislature to issue rules clarifying—or broadening, depending on the view—the office’s UDAP authority. Although Massachusetts provides for both private and public enforcement of its consumer protection laws, it remains unclear whether the Rule applies to private rights of action, or at a minimum, suggests standards of law to Massachusetts courts in evaluating private “junk fee” cases.
Whether through statutory interpretation, express statute or rule, the increased focus on “junk fees” signals enhanced state enforcement risk.
Companies doing business in Massachusetts, including online marketing to consumers in the Commonwealth, should move swiftly to ensure their current consumer pricing practices, as well as any future pricing strategies, comply with the Rule. Moreover, businesses should evaluate their consumer-facing applications to ensure that pricing information is clear and comprehensible and that customers can easily cancel recurring payments and subscriptions and trial offers. When conducting this review, businesses should ensure they
Third-party sellers also should ensure they comply with the Rule. Businesses should evaluate their consumer interfaces to assess how quickly Massachusetts consumers can cancel recurring payments and subscriptions.
Lastly, to mitigate risk, businesses should remain vigilant and continue to monitor their pricing practices, disclosure of mandatory fees, and consumer cancellation procedures to ensure compliance with the Rule. A thorough compliance program following the FTC’s disclosure requirements can reduce legal risk.
If you have any questions or would like more information on the issues discussed in this LawFlash, please contact any of the following:
[1] 940 Mass. Code Regs. 38.00 et seq.
[2] See Pending Federal Register Notice, Trade Regulation Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees.
[3] Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A et seq.
[4] Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A et seq.
[5] Under Mass. Gen. L. Ch. 93A(1)(b):
‘Trade’ and ‘commerce’ shall include the advertising, the offering for sale, rent or lease, the sale, rent, lease or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, any security as defined in subparagraph (k) of section four hundred and one of chapter one hundred and ten A and any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situate, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this commonwealth.