| Course | GB590 Ethics in Business and Society |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Consumer protection case |
| Length | About 1,170 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB590 Unit 6
The Price on the First Screen: A Unit 6 Consumer Protection Case on Resort Fees at a Hotel Group
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB590: Ethics in Business and Society
Unit 6 Consumer Protection Case
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hotel group, its booking flow and every figure are composite and illustrative; the rule, the studies and the sources cited are real.
The Case File
The group operates 22 resort hotels in Florida, Arizona and South Carolina. Its own website and the large online travel sites where it lists rooms show a nightly rate on the search results page, for example $189 for a standard room at its Gulf Coast property. The flow then runs as follows.
Step 1. The guest searches by dates and sees a list of hotels with nightly rates, $189 for the Gulf Coast property.
Step 2. The guest selects the hotel and sees room types, still priced at $189 and up.
Step 3. The guest selects a room and enters guest details.
Step 4. On the payment screen, a line reads "Resort fee: $38.00 per night" above taxes. For a five-night stay, the fee adds $190, raising the room cost by about 20 percent before tax.
The fee covers wireless internet, pool towels, fitness center access, two bottles of water a day and beach chairs. Guests cannot decline it, even if they use none of these. Resort fees bring the group about $14.6 million a year, roughly 9 percent of room revenue. Over the past two years, guest complaints about the fee have tripled, and a state attorney general's office has sent the group a letter requesting information about how it discloses mandatory fees.
The Legal Setting
The Federal Trade Commission finalized its Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees in December 2024, and it took effect in May 2025 (Federal Trade Commission, 2024). For businesses offering short-term lodging or live-event tickets, the rule requires that whenever a price is shown, the total price including all mandatory fees be displayed more prominently than other pricing information. Optional charges and government taxes can still appear later. Several states have their own rules, and California's honest pricing law, in effect since July 2024, bans hidden mandatory fees across most industries. State attorneys general have also brought cases against large hotel chains over resort fees since 2019.
Under the federal rule, the group's current flow is unlawful for any price display reaching consumers. The ethical analysis still matters, for two reasons. The group must decide how to comply, whether by folding the fee into the room rate or by showing a total that includes a separately named fee, and those choices treat guests differently. And the online travel sites where many guests book are handled under contracts that predate the rule.
Why Drip Pricing Works
Drip pricing works because people anchor on the first price they see and are reluctant to restart a search after investing effort. Blake et al. (2021) used a large field experiment on a ticket resale site, where some buyers saw all-in prices from the first page and others met fees at checkout; the second group bought more often and chose pricier seats. Santana et al. (2020) found in a series of experiments that consumers who encounter fees late in a purchase feel deceived and are less likely to return, even when they complete the purchase. The first finding explains why companies adopt the practice; the second explains why it can harm them over time.
A fee guests cannot decline is part of the price, and a price shown without it is not the price.
The Ethical Analysis
Deception. A displayed rate that omits a mandatory charge invites a false belief about what the room costs. The group does not state anything false, but it arranges information so that guests compare its incomplete rate against competitors' rates, some of which include all charges. Treating guests as rational decision makers requires giving them the information they need to compare, at the point they compare.
Autonomy. By the time the fee appears, the guest has spent time choosing dates, comparing rooms and entering details. Starting again elsewhere has a real cost, so the late disclosure narrows the guest's choice without the guest noticing.
Fairness among competitors. Hotels that show all-in prices appear more expensive on comparison screens than hotels that do not. Drip pricing therefore penalizes the honest competitor, which is one reason regulators moved to require total prices.
The amenities defense. The group argues the fee pays for real amenities. That may be true, but if guests cannot decline them, the amenities are part of the room. Their cost belongs in the room rate.
What Guests Experience
The complaint records show what the practice costs the people it affects. Most complaints do not dispute that the fee was disclosed; they describe feeling misled after comparing hotels on the basis of a lower rate. A typical complaint describes choosing the group's Gulf Coast property over a competitor that showed , only to pay plus tax. Guests who book through online travel sites often see the fee only in small print and learn its amount at check-in. Front desk staff report that disputes over the fee are the most common cause of tense check-ins, and that many guests ask for it to be removed, which managers are not authorized to do. The practice thus shifts a cost onto front-line employees as well as guests: the people least responsible for the pricing decision spend the most time defending it.
Options
Show a total that includes a named resort fee. This complies with the federal rule and preserves the fee's visibility, but keeps a charge many guests resent.
Fold the fee into the room rate. The advertised rate rises from $189 to $227, and the fee disappears. This is the clearest option for guests, and it removes a recurring source of complaints. It also makes the group look more expensive than competitors who still drip fees on sites the federal rule does not reach or where enforcement lags.
Make the amenities optional. Charge $38 only to guests who choose a package. This is honest but likely to reduce revenue more than the other options, since many guests would decline.
Recommendation and Its Cost
The group should fold the fee into its room rates at all 22 properties and require its online travel partners to display the all-in rate. The group's revenue team estimates that bookings from comparison searches could fall by 3 to 5 percent in the first year, as some guests choose competitors that appear cheaper, costing roughly $5 million to $8 million in room revenue. That estimate assumes no change in competitors' behavior; as the federal rule is enforced, competitors will have to show totals as well, and the gap should close. Against the cost, the group would eliminate the complaints, the attorney general's inquiry and the risk of penalties under the federal rule, and it would treat guests as people entitled to the real price.
References
Blake, T., Moshary, S., Sweeney, K., & Tadelis, S. (2021). Price salience and product choice. Marketing Science, 40(4), 619-636. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1261
Federal Trade Commission. (2024, December 17). Federal Trade Commission announces bipartisan rule banning junk ticket and hotel fees [Press release].
Santana, S., Dallas, S. K., & Morwitz, V. G. (2020). Consumer reactions to drip pricing. Marketing Science, 39(1), 188-210. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1207
The Purdue Global GB590 Unit 6 instructions
The sixth GB590 assignment presents a marketing practice that may harm consumers and asks you to evaluate it. Lay out the practice as a customer encounters it, step by step, with prices or terms at each point. Summarize the relevant consumer protection law and regulatory actions. Explain why the practice works, using research on consumer behavior. Analyze it ethically, considering deception, autonomy, fairness to competitors and the company's own defense of the practice. Compare realistic options for changing it, and recommend one with an estimate of its cost to the company. Address both what the law requires and what the company owes beyond it. Expect about six pages with APA 7 references.
How the GB 590 Unit 6 example is put together
The case file walks through four booking steps, from a $189 search result to a $38 nightly fee that adds $190 to a five-night stay. A legal section summarizes the FTC's 2024 rule on mandatory fees, California's honest pricing law and attorneys general cases against hotel chains. A behavioral section draws on Blake and colleagues' ticket resale experiment and Santana, Dallas and Morwitz's work on felt deception, and the highlighted sentence defines a fee guests cannot decline as part of the price. The ethical analysis covers deception, autonomy, competitor fairness and the amenities defense. Front desk complaints are described next. Three options are compared, and the paper recommends folding the fee into rates despite a $5 million to $8 million revenue cost.
Where the points sit in the GB590 Unit 6 rubric
Points in this GB590 consumer case follow from showing the practice as customers meet it. A step-by-step case file earns credit because it makes the timing of disclosure visible. Accurate treatment of the law, including recent rules, shows the analysis rests on the actual regulatory setting. Research on why the practice works demonstrates that the writer understands consumer behavior. The ethical analysis carries heavy weight when it engages the company's own defense rather than ignoring it. Options compared on their effects for customers and the company, with a costed recommendation, show managerial judgment. Distinguishing legal compliance from what the company owes beyond it, and listing sources in APA 7, complete the rubric.
GB590 Unit 6 help from the desk
GB590 consumer protection papers often call a practice deceptive without showing the customer's path, so the reader cannot see where information is withheld. Others summarize the law without asking how the company could comply, since several compliant designs may treat customers differently. A common gap is ignoring behavioral evidence, which explains why the practice persists. Writers also dismiss the company's defense instead of answering it. Recommendations frequently ignore revenue effects, which makes them easy for a manager to reject. Map the customer's steps, state the current rules, explain the behavior that makes the practice pay, answer the company's best argument and price your recommendation. A free custom consumer protection case is one request away.
Get a GB590 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 6 marketing or consumer dilemma, any statute or agency your readings cite, and the rubric. The case sets out the company's practice step by step, states the law without overclaiming, tests the design against consent and fairness, and prices the fix it recommends, reaching you in 24-48h. The rowing company is invented, and there is no fee for a first sample. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB590 papers and MBA samples
- GB590 Unit 1: Ethical Dilemma Post
- GB590 Unit 2: Ethical Framework Application
- GB590 Unit 3: Stakeholder Map
- GB590 Unit 4: Governance Failure Case
- GB590 Unit 5: Workplace Ethics Analysis
- GB590 Unit 7: Sustainability Trade-off Paper
- GB590 Unit 8: Global Labor Standards Analysis
- GB590 Unit 9: Ethics Program Recommendation
- GB590 Unit 10: Stakeholder Case Analysis
- GB580 Unit 6: Corporate Strategy Analysis
- GB570 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB560 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB550 Unit 6: Cost of Capital Estimate
GB590 Unit 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free GB590 Unit 6 sample paper?
A complete GB590 Unit 6 consumer protection case sits on this page, following a composite hotel group's booking flow, the FTC fee rule, drip-pricing research and a costed recommendation to fold resort fees into rates.
What is drip pricing?
Showing a lower price first and adding mandatory fees later in the purchase. Research finds it raises spending and purchase rates, which is why companies use it and why regulators now require total prices for hotels and tickets.
Does the FTC fee rule ban resort fees?
No. It requires that the total price including mandatory fees be shown whenever a price is displayed for short-term lodging or live-event tickets. A hotel can still charge a resort fee if it is included in the price shown first.
Is a mandatory fee for real amenities still deceptive?
The amenities may be real, but if guests cannot decline them, the fee is part of the room's price. Showing a rate without it invites guests to compare an incomplete price against competitors' totals.
Why does the recommendation fold the fee into the rate instead of naming it in a total?
Both comply with the rule, but folding the fee in removes the charge guests resent most, ends a common source of front desk disputes and gives guests one clear price to compare.