HR-9255-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would require timeshare companies to provide buyers with a single document itemizing all acquisition and ongoing costs, a description of which fees can be changed and how much notice will be given, and a clear list of options for ending ownership. It would also guarantee buyers a 14-day cancellation window with no penalty and require that buyers have unsupervised time to review all contract documents before signing. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would enforce these requirements and would be directed to issue implementing regulations.
Who benefits
Current and prospective timeshare buyers — estimated at roughly 10 million U.S. timeshare owners — who would gain clearer cost disclosures and a guaranteed exit review period. First-time buyers and older adults, who are disproportionately targeted by high-pressure timeshare sales presentations, would benefit most. Consumer protection attorneys and legal aid organizations would have a clearer federal standard to cite in disputes. State attorneys general would gain a federal floor to build upon. Timeshare exit companies that help owners legally terminate contracts may see reduced demand as buyers make more informed decisions upfront.
Who is hurt
Timeshare companies and their sales staff, who rely on high-pressure, in-person sales environments and may see reduced close rates if buyers have unsupervised review time and a 14-day cancellation right. Timeshare resellers and secondary market operators could be indirectly affected if the market shrinks. Timeshare exit and cancellation companies — a large industry — could see reduced business if clearer upfront disclosures reduce the number of buyers who later feel trapped. Compliance costs would fall on timeshare developers, particularly smaller operators with fewer administrative resources.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the timeshare industry has a well-documented history of high-pressure sales tactics that obscure the true long-term cost of ownership, including perpetual maintenance fees that can rise without limit. They contend that a single, itemized disclosure document and a guaranteed unsupervised review period directly address the information asymmetry that leads to buyer's remorse and costly legal disputes. The FTC has received tens of thousands of timeshare-related complaints, and the American Resort Development Association's own data shows that a significant share of owners wish they had never purchased — evidence, supporters argue, that the current disclosure environment is inadequate.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that most states already have rescission periods and disclosure requirements for timeshare sales, making a federal mandate duplicative and potentially disruptive to a patchwork of state consumer protection regimes that have been refined over decades. They contend that the bill's broad definition of "timeshare" and its delegation of rulemaking authority to the FTC could create regulatory uncertainty for legitimate vacation ownership products, including newer points-based and fractional ownership models. Critics may also argue that the 14-day cancellation window and mandatory unsupervised review period impose compliance costs that would disproportionately burden smaller regional timeshare operators without meaningfully reducing consumer harm.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate timeshare sales rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as timeshare transactions routinely involve buyers and sellers across state lines. The bill delegates rulemaking to the FTC, which under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) means courts will independently assess whether the FTC's implementing rules stay within the statutory authority Congress actually granted, rather than deferring to the agency's own interpretation.
Checks and balances
Congress sets the disclosure and cancellation requirements; the FTC gains rulemaking and enforcement authority under the bill; courts review FTC rules under independent judicial judgment post-Loper Bright, and states retain authority to impose stricter protections.
Historical precedent
The FTC's Used Car Rule (1984) and the Cooling-Off Rule (1972) established federal disclosure and cancellation requirements for specific consumer transactions, providing a structural analogue to this bill's approach.