Each of these is a refusal this regime lets a counterparty attempt, paired with the answer to it. Reading them before you write is worth more than any amount of polish on the letter itself.
"The fee was disclosed in our terms and conditions"
high likelihoodThe trader points at a fees page, a footnote, an asterisk, a hyperlink, or a line in the terms accepted at checkout, and treats that as compliance.
What answers it
Ask which rule they say they complied with. A disclosure buried behind a link satisfies neither kind of obligation. Under a total-price rule the fee had to be in the price you were shown when you were shopping, so a later disclosure is not a defence at all — the violation was complete when the price was displayed. Under a disclosure rule the information must be clear, conspicuous and given before the transactional decision, which a hyperlink or a terms page is repeatedly held not to be.
"That is a tax or a government charge, so it is excluded"
high likelihoodThe trader labels a fee of its own — a "resort fee", a "service fee", a "regulatory recovery fee", a "municipal cost recovery charge" — in language that sounds governmental.
What answers it
The exclusions are narrow and they are about who levies the charge, not what it is called. A charge is excluded only where it is imposed by a government on the transaction and passed through unchanged. A fee the business sets, keeps, and merely names after a regulatory cost is the business's own charge and must be in the total price. Ask them to identify the taxing authority, the instrument imposing it, and the rate. A charge with no answer to those three questions is not a government charge.
"You saw the total before you paid and went ahead anyway"
high likelihoodThe trader argues that completing the purchase after seeing the final figure cures everything that came before it.
What answers it
Under a total-price rule the breach happened when the price was advertised, and proceeding at checkout neither cures it nor waives it. Under a disclosure rule the question is whether the omission was capable of causing the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken — which is exactly what drip pricing is designed to achieve, since by the time the fee appears the consumer has invested time, entered details, and in a ticketing context is inside a countdown timer.
"That fee is charged by someone else, not us"
medium likelihoodA ticketing platform blames the venue, a hotel booking site blames the hotel, an airline blames the payment processor.
What answers it
The obligation attaches to whoever advertises the price. If the fee is unavoidable to complete the purchase then it forms part of the price you must pay, and it belongs in the figure that was advertised, whoever ultimately receives it. Ask the trader to show that the fee is genuinely optional or genuinely outside their control; if a purchase cannot be completed without it, it is neither.
"This is standard practice in our industry"
medium likelihoodThe trader treats the prevalence of drip pricing as evidence that it is lawful.
What answers it
Prevalence is why the rules were written, not a defence to them. Regulators on four continents legislated against this practice between 2022 and 2025 precisely because it had become universal. Ask the trader to identify the provision it relies on rather than the conduct of its competitors.