Hopper · CHI Company Investigation · Travel & Hospitality
Conclusion: Supports · Scope: booking checkout and paid support, as alleged by the FTC · No score assigned
Hopper tested what happened when customers could actually see and choose its fees. Most stopped paying them.
The FTC alleged that Hopper hid and pre-selected optional Tip and VIP Support charges, while internal tests showed sharply lower payment rates when customers were shown the fees and asked to opt in. Hopper settled for $35 million without admitting or denying the allegations.
FTC allegations based on internal Hopper testing. $85.6M is calculated by CHI from yearly figures in the FTC complaint; the FTC did not publish this total, and it is not a measure of unauthorized charges.1,2
According to the FTC complaint, Hopper ran a 2018 experiment comparing four ways of presenting the same fee. The fee was the same in every version. Only the interface changed: visible or below the visible screen, pre-selected or left for the customer to select.1
Payment fell from 75% to 15% when the Tip changed from hidden and pre-selected to disclosed and unselected. The complaint states that, as a result of this experiment, Hopper changed its mandatory fee into the hidden, pre-selected Tip.1 The test measures how many customers paid under each interface; it does not by itself establish what each customer intended.
Source. FTC complaint, paragraphs 42 and 47, describing Hopper’s internal testing. The underlying test documents are not public; the figures are as the FTC reports them.1
The complaint describes further experiments in 2023, on both the Tip and VIP Support. Each time a fee became visible and opt-in, far fewer customers paid it. According to the complaint, Hopper did not adopt the opt-in versions.1
Also in the complaint. A May 2023 VIP Support test in which requiring an opt-in lowered conversion from 37% to 5.57% for air and from 19% to 2.6% for hotels; the complaint states Hopper “did not adopt the opt-in user interface.” A 2021 test in which customers had to scroll past the fees before swiping was turned off after a revenue loss of more than $3 per transaction.1
The complaint alleges that from 2020 to late 2023, Hopper’s air booking flow showed a “Total”, then asked customers to swipe to book, while two pre-selected fees sat below the visible part of the screen. A customer who swiped without scrolling was charged both.1
The customer wrote that the app “said $213”. Hopper’s reply, as quoted in the complaint, said a VIP Support fee of $25.00 and a Tip of $5.00 “was also added to the original reservation hence USD253.94 was charged in total”.1
The two named fees account for $30.00 of the $40.94 gap. The complaint excerpt does not explain the remainder, and CHI does not attribute it.
This is one record among the complaints the FTC cites. It does not show that every Hopper transaction followed this pattern.
Source. FTC complaint, paragraphs 24–28 (booking flow, January 2022 screenshots) and 31 (customer relationship records, 2021 to mid-2024).1
The complaint gives yearly figures for both fees. VIP Support was the larger of the two in every year shown. The complaint also quotes Hopper describing VIP Support as “literally 100% of the gross profit that our air business derives.”1
CHI calculationCHI calculation from annual figures in the FTC complaint. The FTC complaint does not itself state an $85.6M total. The total is revenue from the two fees, not a measure of charges made without consent, and it does not measure the same thing as the $35M judgment.1,2
The FTC complaint alleges that Hopper previously charged a mandatory $5 service fee. In late 2018, according to the complaint, Hopper changed the fee after testing different presentations, moved it below the visible area, pre-selected it and labelled it a “Tip”.1
A service fee on every booking transaction (¶47).
Testing showed a hidden, pre-selected fee “would double conversion rates”; the fee was relocated below the visible screen, pre-selected and renamed (¶47).
Pre-selected Tip and VIP Support under the “Swipe to Book” screen (¶24). Late 2023: pre-selected fees resumed “above the fold” after a temporary suspension (¶46).
The Tip moved to the end of the purchase flow (¶48). See the September 2025 exhibit below.
“Seems like the tip is straight up a fee, which we try to avoid.”Hopper employee, internal communication of 9 December 2021, as quoted in the FTC complaint, paragraph 401
The complaint includes screenshots dated 30 September 2025 from the end of a hotel booking. After the swipe, screens tell the customer to keep the app open while the booking is confirmed. The next screen offers a Tip:1
The complaint alleges the screen does not say the Tip can be declined or that declining has no effect on the booking (¶¶51–54).
This is an FTC complaint exhibit, not verified current behavior. CHI did not inspect the live Hopper app.
It matters for the timeline: Hopper says the challenged practices were discontinued in mid-2023. The complaint’s exhibit is dated more than two years later. This screen is the basis of the complaint’s Fees Rule count for short-term lodging bookings made since 12 May 2025.1,5
A May 2023 internal design proposal had included a “No thanks” option; the complaint alleges it was not adopted (¶50).
The complaint quotes internal messages. They are supporting context; the test results above are the stronger evidence. Each quotation below was checked against the complaint PDF.
“I’m struggling to see how we view this as anything but deceptive UX [user experience].”FTC complaint, paragraph 38
“To me, the problem here is that we’re tricking users.”FTC complaint, paragraph 40
Context. Quotations are as they appear in the FTC complaint, including its bracketed insertions. They are the FTC’s selection from Hopper’s records and are allegations in a settled case.1
Basic support was included in the booking price. VIP Support was an optional paid upgrade, sold since 2020. The CHI concern is the monetization of expedited support and the alleged gap between its promise and its performance, not a charge for all support.1
“Get a guaranteed response within 5 minutes” · “Upgrade to VIP Support to chat with an agent instantly”Pop-up dated 6 Dec 2022; ad dated 30 Jan 2023 · FTC complaint, Figures 8–91
“You may be waiting for up to 48 hours for a response” · “Requests will be responded to via email within 24 hours”Same ads, describing the included Basic Support1
The complaint alleges VIP buyers “were often unable to reach a customer support agent at all or had to wait substantial amounts of time”. Its examples are four consumer complaints to the FTC and one employee message reporting no VIP response “after 45 min”. It gives no aggregate response-time data.1
Also alleged. VIP Support was pre-selected at checkout alongside the Tip (see section 03), and its fee was not refunded when a booking was cancelled unless the customer asked (¶29).1
A paid option to hold a fare or room price for a period is not hostile in itself. The complaint’s allegations concern the gap between how Price Freeze (also sold as Hold the Room) was marketed and how it worked.1
The Price Freeze payment was applied to the booking (¶78).
Hopper stopped applying the payment to the booking and retained it as a fee, generally non-refundable (¶¶79, 82).
The same change for hotel stays (¶79).
“Freeze Flight Deals With Just a Deposit” and “If the price increases, you’ll pay the price you see now” (¶66).
After the change to a fee, the complaint alleges “deposit” language continued, for example “$35 deposit, pay 7 days later” (¶80).1
The cap and the no-hold terms were disclosed, on a second screen after selecting Price Freeze (¶¶73, 76). Hopper later added a statement that the “Fee will not apply to the price of the ticket”, which the FTC calls ambiguous (¶87).1 A Hopper help article reviewed during the research phase, no longer available at the original URL when this page was built, described the Price Freeze purchase as non-refundable, and said a customer pays the lower price if the fare drops.6
Not established. How often customers hit the cap or lost availability, and Price Freeze revenue. When this page was built, the help article cited above returned “not found” and no Price Freeze article appeared in Hopper’s help-centre search; CHI draws no conclusion from that about the product’s current status.6
CHI presents both positions. It does not resolve the conflict: the complaint’s allegations were not tested in court, and CHI did not inspect the live app.
“primarily outdated display practices implemented during the pandemic, limited to the Hopper app, and discontinued by Hopper in mid-2023, prior to the start of the FTC’s inquiry.”
The complaint alleges:
After testing four presentations (¶47).
FTC allegationAir booking flow, January 2022 screenshots (¶¶24–27).
FTC allegation“prior to the start of the FTC’s inquiry”.
Hopper statementAfter temporary compliance steps, including suspending the fees, were rolled back “because of the costs involved” (¶46).
FTC allegationHotel booking flow, complaint Figure 7 (¶¶51–52).
FTC allegationComplaint Figure 1 (¶19).
FTC allegationU.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. Commission vote 2–0.
Court record$35 million monetary judgment; fee-disclosure and consent requirements.
Court orderHopper neither admitted nor denied the substantive allegations. For the purposes of the case it admitted only the facts needed for the court’s jurisdiction. The $35 million is a monetary judgment designated for consumer relief such as redress; it is not a civil penalty.2,4
Charging Tip and VIP Support without express informed consent; “no hidden fees” claims; undisclosed Tip terms; VIP Support response-time claims; Price Freeze claims; and, for short-term lodging since 12 May 2025, the Fees Rule.1
Paid in twelve instalments. Money may go to a Commission-administered fund for consumer relief such as redress; any remainder may go to related relief or the U.S. Treasury.2
Other proceedings. A proposed class action in Quebec, Canada, repeats similar themes; an application for authorization was filed in July 2026 and the class has not been authorized.8 No state attorney general action was found. Hopper states there are no other ongoing investigations by the FTC or any other agency.5
The strongest alleged extraction occurred deeper in the funnel, after the customer had selected the itinerary and progressed toward payment. By then the customer has chosen a trip, entered payment details and committed time to the booking.
Advertising framing, dated 2021 to 2026 (¶19).
Protection products offered; cap and no-hold terms on a second screen.
Alleged hidden, pre-selected Tip and VIP Support.
Charged even before the supplier confirmed (¶29).
Shown while the booking is confirming (¶51).
Basic included; VIP Support paid.
Complaint alleges they were refunded only if specifically requested (¶29).
Source. FTC complaint as cited in each step.1 The journey is CHI’s reconstruction from those allegations.
The evidence is insufficient for a broad refunds-as-credits or Hopper-controlled cancellation thesis. One narrower point is supported by the complaint.
Now required. The 2026 order requires automatic refunds of fees on cancelled or uncompleted transactions, to the original payment method or cash, unless the fee was clearly disclosed as non-refundable.2
CHI’s institutional signal taxonomy, applied without forcing a fit. These describe the alleged economic effect.
Final-stage checkout monetization: pre-selected charges, default-on design, a post-purchase Tip prompt, and continued monetization after internal tests allegedly showed far lower voluntary uptake.1
Expedited support sold separately from the Basic support included in the booking, and Price Freeze economics moved from a deposit applied to the booking toward a retained fee.1
No evidence found.
Hopper did not attribute these charges to external or regulated costs.
Listed so that the evidence can be weighed, not to soften the finding.
Current-state conclusions are based on the court order and available Hopper/FTC materials, not independent observation of current app behavior. This page does not state that Hopper still uses the challenged practices, or that it has fully complied with the order.
Final CHI assessment · Supports
According to the FTC complaint, Hopper’s own tests showed that most customers stopped paying its Tip and VIP Support fees when the fees were visible and opt-in. The complaint alleges Hopper kept pre-selected designs, and the two fees brought in about $85.6 million in 2021–2023 by CHI’s arithmetic.
Hopper settled for $35 million without admitting or denying the allegations, and says the practices ended in mid-2023. Price Freeze partially supports the thesis; the refund and cancellation thesis is not established.
The evidence supports customer hostility in Hopper’s booking checkout and paid-support practices during the period investigated. No numerical CHI, CVI or CFS score has been assigned.
Hopper tested what happened when customers could see and choose its fees.
Most stopped paying them.
Sources
Every statement on this page comes from the Hopper CHI research memo (12 October 2026) and traces to a source below. Primary sources lead. Quotations from the FTC complaint and the stipulated order were checked against the original PDFs when this page was built; Hopper’s statement was checked against Hopper’s own page. Paragraph numbers (¶) refer to the FTC complaint. Secondary marks reporting used only where primary evidence does not reach.
Limits carried onto this page. All merits evidence comes from the FTC complaint, which states allegations that were never tested in court; Hopper settled without admitting or denying them. The internal tests, revenue figures and screenshots are as the FTC reports them; the underlying documents are not public. Revenue is given only for 2021–2023, and no count of affected customers is published. The VIP Support performance evidence is anecdotal. CHI did not inspect the live Hopper app, and Hopper’s Terms and product pages could not be retrieved for this investigation.
Status. Research frozen 12 October 2026. No numerical CHI, CVI or CFS score has been assigned; scoring is reserved for a later calibration stage.
Reading this beside the rest of the index
Hopper is assessed here as the intermediary between travelers and airlines, hotels and rental-car companies. Airbnb shows another travel platform’s fee design; Ticketmaster shows checkout fees in a different market. Read the methodology for why no score is assigned yet.