California’s Honest Pricing Law (SB 478) was supposed to settle the junk fee question.  Since July 2, 2024, businesses have had to include all mandatory fees in the advertised price.  The only things they can leave out are government taxes and fees, and reasonable shipping costs for physical goods.  It seemed clear that fees for optional services fall outside the statute and need not be baked into the advertised price.  Businesses read that as a green light.

As we have seen from recent litigation, however, the plaintiffs’ bar has found a way around that, and optional fees are not safe after all.

The Theory: “Optional,” But Not Really

The new wave of complaints targets add-ons like “shipping protection” and “package protection.”  These fees are technically optional, but the plaintiffs say they are built into the checkout process in a way that makes them feel mandatory.  The usual allegations are:

• The fee is added through a pre-checked box or a toggle that is “on” by default.

• It shoes up late in checkout.

• It sits next to promises of “free” or flat-rate shipping.

The legal claim isn’t that the fee had to be in the advertised price.  It is that the checkout flow itself was deceptive and unfair under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

Harris v. LoveShackFancy: The Roadmap

In Harris, a case filed in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff (a California customer) said retailer LoveShackFancy added a “Shipping Protection” fee to online carts through a pre-checked mechanism, without shoppers’ affirmative consent.  Plaintiff could have unchecked the box; she didn’t dispute that.  Instead, she alleged that she didn’t know the charge was optional, and wouldn’t have bought the protection if she had known.  The plaintiff asserted five causes of action: (a) violation of California’s UCL; (b) false and misleading advertising in violation of California’s FAL; (c) violation of California’s CLRA; (d) breach of contract; and (e) unjust enrichment.  Defendant LoveShackFancy moved to dismiss.

In its July 2026 decision, the court dismissed the Section 1770(a)(29) claim and the claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment but, importantly, refused to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the UCL, the FAL, and the CLRA (except Section 1770(a)(29)).

In other words, the court determined that the fee did not violate the CLRA’s drip pricing statute (1770(a)(29)), but allowed the consumer protection claims to proceed.  Notably, the court emphasized that while a reasonable consumer could plausibly perceive the shipping protection fee as mandatory—which spoke to the deceptive presentation of an optional charge—it did not render that charge actually mandatory, and Section 1770(a)(29) only covers mandatory charges.

The court also held that a one-time shipping protection fee added by a pre-checked box can be a “negative option feature” under the federal Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”).  That opens a route for private plaintiffs to effectively enforce ROSCA through California law, even though ROSCA has traditionally been tied to recurring subscription charges (and does not have a private right of action).

Harris Is Not an Outlier

The Harris case is part of a broader trend, and there has been a recent wave of cases with similar claims.  Meanwhile, the original theory isn’t going anywhere either.  Plaintiffs continue to bring classic drip-pricing cases over mandatory processing and handling fees.

Why It Matters

A fee can be optional and properly left out of the advertised price, and the checkout flow can still give rise to UCL, FAL, and CLA claims.  Plaintiffs are reframing junk fee cases as cases about consent and checkout design, and at least one federal court—the Harris court—has let that theory survive a motion to dismiss.  The lesson is simple: complying only with the bare minimum required by SB 478 may not be sufficient.

What Companies Should Do Now

Audit checkout flows. Look at every point where a fee is added.  Pre-checked boxes and default-on toggles are the main target.

Look closely at optional fees. Make sure each add-on is truly opt in, and that its name and description match what it actually provides.

Check promotional claims against the final total.  A “free shipping” banner next to an auto-added shipping-related fee is exactly what plaintiffs are targeting.