The Ministry of Social Rights, Consumption and Agenda 2030 has opened a sanctioning file against a company that sells transport tickets for not showing from the beginning of the purchase process the management fees included later in the amount that the customer had to pay. This is the first action of this kind since the reform that strengthened transparency regarding the final price.
The information, advanced this Thursday by El País and confirmed to EFE by sources from the Ministry, does not allow identifying the affected platform. The file is in processing and the company will be able to submit allegations, so that the opening of the procedure does not equate to a firm sanction.
What changes with management fees when buying a ticket
The regulation requires that the amount announced to the consumer corresponds to the definitive and complete price that they will have to face, including taxes and any additional amounts that the company charges them. The Ministry had already explained that this obligation aims to prevent the cost of a purchase from appearing broken down at different moments in the process.
Management fees can continue to exist, but they must be incorporated from the beginning when they are an inevitable part of the operation. The regulation includes concepts related to administrative, organizational, intermediation, or processing tasks and requires that they correspond to a service effectively provided.
The practical consequence is that a platform cannot attract the customer with a lower amount and then reveal a mandatory cost when they have already advanced to the last screens. The buyer must have the necessary information to compare the real cost of different offers before deciding.
What is "drip pricing"
The behavior that is at the center of the file is known as "drip pricing." It consists of initially presenting an offer and then adding inevitable amounts, such as management, distribution, or processing fees, as the contracting process progresses.
These surcharges are different from services that depend on a voluntary choice by the customer. If the buyer can freely decide whether to contract an additional service, its amount does not have the same consideration as a cost that must necessarily be assumed to complete the purchase of the ticket.
The drip pricing problem also affects competition between platforms. A company that initially hides part of the cost may appear in a search as cheaper than another that does show the full amount from the very beginning, even if the final outlay ends up being the same or higher.
The eventual fine could reach 100,000 euros
The investigation opened this Thursday does not yet have an imposed fine. If the procedure concludes proving the investigated infringement, the known information about the file indicates that the sanction could reach 100,000 euros.
The sanctioning regulation also allows that, in certain cases and depending on the severity finally assessed, the amount is linked to the illicit benefit obtained. In the case of very serious infringements, a multiple of that benefit can be used as a reference, which prevents anticipating a specific amount for the investigated company.
It will be the administrative processing that determines whether there was responsibility and what consequence corresponds. Until there is a resolution, the 100,000 euros represent a possible maximum associated with the case and not the sanction that the company will necessarily receive.
How to detect hidden management fees
For the consumer, the most evident signal appears when the amount increases through a mandatory charge after selecting the product or service. If that amount could be known in advance and is essential to complete the contracting, it must be part of the price information offered from the start.
The name used for the surcharge does not change this obligation either. It may appear as an administration, distribution, formalization, or processing fee, as well as under names like "booking fee" or "service fee." What is decisive is its nature and whether the company necessarily passes it on to the buyer.
If differences are detected during the contracting, it is useful to keep screenshots of the different screens and the final breakdown. That documentation allows proving what price was initially shown and when the additional costs appeared.
A practice that was already under the scrutiny of consumer associations
The surcharges added during digital purchases had generated controversy before the regulatory change. The Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU) reported in 2024 six companies for practices related to management fees after analyzing different online sales platforms.
In that study, the organization calculated that the fees charged by the analyzed websites increased on average by 11% the initially announced price. Among the problems detected were their concealment until the moment of payment, charging per entry instead of per transaction, and the absence of a precise justification.
The new administrative action represents a different step: Consumption has initiated for the first time a sanctioning procedure specifically linked to the breach of the reinforced obligation to show those costs from the beginning of the contracting.
Consumption has not revealed which platform it is investigating
The available information only allows specifying that the file affects a company dedicated to the sale of transport tickets. The name of the company has not been communicated, so the procedure cannot be attributed to any specific platform without official confirmation.
The procedure will now determine whether the investigated conduct actually constitutes an infringement. The company will have the opportunity to defend its actions before the Administration adopts a final resolution.