Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
A federal judge has struck down a Biden-era rule requiring airlines to disclose service fees upfront.
Some shit you should know before you read: Back in 2022, the Biden administration introduced a rule aimed at increasing transparency in airline pricing by requiring carriers and ticket agents to disclose all mandatory service fees upfront. The regulation mandated that airlines clearly display extra charges—such as baggage fees, seat selection fees, and fees for changing or canceling a reservation—alongside the base airfare at the time of booking, rather than surprising customers later in the purchasing process. Under the regulation, airlines were required to share detailed fee data with third-party ticket sellers by October 2024 and fully implement the disclosures on their own websites by April 2025. At the time, the Department of Transportation (DOT) justified the rule by citing consumer overpayments of approximately $543 million yearly in unexpected fees, arguing that increased transparency would empower travelers to make informed purchasing decisions and compare total costs more easily.
In an effort to stop the Biden-era rule requiring upfront disclosure of airline service fees, a group of major airlines, including American Airlines, Delta, United, JetBlue, and Alaska Airlines, filed a lawsuit against DOT. The lawsuit, backed by industry groups like Airlines for America (A4A) and the International Air Transport Association (IATA), argued that the regulation was an example of government overreach. In addition, the airlines claimed that they already provide sufficient fee information and that forcing them to display all potential charges upfront would clutter the booking process and make it more difficult for customers to navigate.
What’s going on now: The court ultimately sided with the airlines, ruling that while DOT has the authority to regulate unfair or deceptive practices in the airline industry, it failed to follow proper procedural steps before finalizing the rule. Specifically, the judge determined that the DOT should have allowed airlines the opportunity to comment on a study that assessed the impact of the rule, a procedural oversight that rendered the regulation invalid. As a result, the court blocked the rule and sent it back to the DOT for revision.
What happens next remains uncertain, as the future of the rule now depends on whether the Trump administration chooses to revise and reintroduce it or abandon the effort entirely. As of now, the White House has not commented on the news.
