paying a late-disclosed "drip pricing" fee suffices as injury under Cal's new law

Chowning v. Tyler Tech., Inc., 2025 WL 3496690, No. 4:25-CV-04009-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025)

One of the first “drip pricing” cases I’ve seen under California’s new law, which the court reads to enable certain claims over and above previous law.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation awarded Tyler a 10-year contract to design and operate ReserveCalifornia.com, a website that enables online booking for campsites located in California State Parks.

Reserve California charges campers a campsite fee and a $8.25 reservation fee. In exchange for Tyler’s services, DPR “agreed to compensate [Tyler with] the eligible reservation-based transaction fees.” The contract requires DPR to approve any service and reservation fee that Tyler charges and requires Tyler to comply with federal and California laws and regulations in designing, operating, and otherwise performing any services related to Reserve California.

Plaintiffs alleged that the $8.25 reservation fee that Tyler charges is not included in “the initial price displayed to consumers” and is not disclosed “until the final check-out screens.” Although Tyler disputed this, arguing weakly that it discloses the reservation fee under the “Show More” link related to unit details, amenities, and other remarks regarding the selected campsite, “[a] website is not judicially noticeable, nor does the Court resolve factual disputes on a motion to dismiss.” Note: even if the court did consider this, it shouldn’t matter— “Show More” is a classic example of an uninformative, useless disclosure that wouldn’t allow consumers to understand that additional fees are being added. In the screenshots below, the fee is only mentioned at step 3 (checkout page 1), and the true full price of the reservation is shown at step 4 (checkout page 2).

step 1: "starting at" price doesn't include fee

step 2: specific choice doesn't show fee

step 3: fee mentioned in middle of text, no indication of total

step 4: the actual price!

The plaintiffs brought the usual statutory California claims and also alleged unjust enrichment.

The 2023 Honest Pricing Act prohibits certain deceptive advertising tactics, including “drip pricing,” where a firm advertises the product’s base price and later reveals other mandatory fees. It added the following provision to the CLRA:

(a) The unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices listed in this subdivision undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:

...

(29) (A) advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than either of the following:

(i) Taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction.

(ii) Postage or carriage charges that will be reasonably and actually incurred to ship the physical good to the consumer....

Tyler argued that plaintiffs couldn’t show causation or harm, because they paid the final price knowing what it was.  The court noted that “the legislature’s decision to prohibit a particular misleading advertising practice is evidence that the legislature has deemed that the practice constitutes a ‘material’ misrepresentation, and courts must defer to that determination.” The complaint alleged that, “had [plaintiffs] known the true nature of the Junk Fee ... [they] would have attempted to pay in person directly to [the California state park].” That sufficed for materiality, which itself suffices for the elements of reliance and causation.

“At this early stage of litigation, it would be inappropriate for the Court to hypothesize about the availability of alternatives or other factual circumstances surrounding the transaction.” Plus, the court declined to create a Catch-22: “any consumer seeking to enforce the new CLRA provision could either purchase the product (despite the fee disclosure, which, according to defendant would strip a plaintiff of standing due to a lack of causation) or decline the purchase (meaning the plaintiff was not damaged, and therefore did not have standing).” Quoting a previous decision: “Surely the Legislature did not pass a law with no practical effect—especially given the overarching purpose of the CLRA.”

This also resolved questions about what constituted damage: “A plaintiff is injured when they pay for an unlawful fee in the context of drip pricing,” whether or not they knew the full amount they were paying. “While the Court agrees that Tyler is not required to disclose to whom the reservation fee is paid, Tyler’s argument does not address its alleged failure to disclose the complete price, including the reservation fee, in the first instance.”

For the CLRA claim, Tyler argued that: (1) campsite reservations are neither “goods” nor “services” for purposes of the statute; and (2) the reservation fee is exempt because it is a tax or fee that the government imposes. The court rejected both arguments. In evaluating whether the challenged conduct is a good or service, a court must follow the statutory requirement that the CLRA shall be “liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.”

A campsite reservation isn’t a good, but it is a “service,” given that the Honest Pricing Act was “designed to prohibit drip pricing in all industries,” which, as the California Legislature explained, includes “short-term rentals, [and] hotels.” If a hotel reservation is a service, so is a campsite reservation. The court distinguished cases about entrance tickets and limited-time licenses to stream a film or TV show.

The fee was also not a “[t]ax[ ] or fee[ ] imposed by a government on the transaction” under the law’s exemption. Any exception to the CLRA (and the other California laws) should be construed narrowly. It wasn’t enough that DPR permits contractors to charge fees and requires DPR approval of those fees. The “airport use fees, hotel taxes, tourism board fees, [and] wheelchair accessible vehicle fees imposed on Lyft and Uber by the Public Utilities Commission” identified by Tyler were “fees collected by a private company but that are passed to and retained by the government.” By contrast, the complaint alleged that Tyler retained the fees at issue. “Whether DPR set and ordered the reservation fee is a factual dispute that the Court will not resolve on a motion to dismiss.”

However, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for failure to allege that Tyler received a benefit through “mistake, fraud, coercion, or request.” Plaintiffs challenged only the advertising, not the fee itself.