HB798 mandates advance, itemized written notice to Louisiana residential customers before any increase to monthly recurring charges or mandatory fees for broadband or cable service. Notices must be separate from bills, list current and new line‑item charges, state the effective date and reason, and provide a phone number and web address; customers can cancel or downgrade without early‑termination fees if they act within the statute's window.
The bill creates a compliance burden for providers—notice delivery choices, two‑year recordkeeping, and potential enforcement under the state's unfair trade practices law—while leaving rate setting to federal and franchise authorities. It sets a state baseline for transparency that will affect billing, customer‑notification systems, and contract terms for providers serving Louisiana residences.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires providers to send clear, itemized written notice to affected residential customers at least 30 calendar days before any price increase, separate from the bill; allows shorter notice only where increases are outside the provider's control but then requires prompt notice. Preserves customers' ability to cancel or downgrade without early‑termination fees tied solely to the increase. Requires two years of records and makes violations unfair or deceptive trade practices enforceable by the attorney general and private suits.
Who It Affects
Residential broadband and cable providers that serve Louisiana addresses, their billing and customer‑service operations, third‑party billing vendors, and the attorney general’s consumer protection enforcement team. It directly affects Louisiana residential subscribers who may receive itemized price notices and the option to cancel or downgrade without ETF.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the operational burden onto providers to improve price transparency and may trigger higher churn or restructured offers. It also creates a state‑level disclosure standard that interacts with federal notice requirements and local franchise rules, forcing providers to harmonize multiple notice obligations and retention practices.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB798 creates a statutory framework requiring providers of broadband internet access and cable/video service to give residential customers timely, itemized notice when their monthly recurring charges or mandatory fees increase. The core obligation is a separate, clear written notice that lists the customer's current monthly recurring charges, each new charge and fee by line item, the effective date, and a brief reason for the change.
The notice must also tell customers how to get more information and how to exercise cancellation or downgrade rights.
The bill builds in an exception for increases that are imposed on the provider with little or no notice—programmer pass‑throughs are the example used. In those cases providers must notify customers as soon as practicable, and at the latest by the customer's next regular billing cycle after the provider learns of the change.
Regardless of the reason for a price increase, customers have a limited window to respond: they can cancel or downgrade without being charged early‑termination fees or other penalties triggered solely by the increase if they act on or before the effective date or within thirty days after receiving notice.On delivery and proof, HB798 permits the provider to use whatever channel the customer has designated for billing communications (mail, email, text). If the customer has not made such an election, the provider must mail notice to the service or billing address.
Providers must keep records—samples of notices and logs showing dates and channels used—for two years after each increase's effective date. The law expressly treats violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices, authorizing the attorney general to pursue civil penalties, injunctions, restitution, and attorneys' fees, and preserving private enforcement under Louisiana’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The bill also makes clear it is a disclosure statute and not rate regulation.
It requires providers to comply with federal statutes and regulations for cable where federal or franchise notice rules are equal to or stricter, and allows local franchise authorities to keep or adopt more stringent customer‑notice standards that would satisfy state law if met. The attorney general gets rulemaking authority under the APA to set reasonable notice formats and recordkeeping standards.
The Act applies only to price increases first noticed to customers on or after its effective date (January 1, 2027).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires at least 30 calendar days' clear, written notice to each affected residential customer before any price increase to monthly recurring charges or mandatory fees.
If a price increase results from factors outside the provider's reasonable control (for example, programmer pass‑through charges), the provider must notify customers as soon as practicable and no later than the customer’s next billing cycle after learning of the change.
Customers can cancel or downgrade the affected service without early‑termination fees or penalties triggered solely by the price increase if they give notice on or before the effective date or within 30 days after receiving notice.
Providers must send the notice separately from the customer's bill and may use the customer's selected billing channel (mail, email, or text); if no channel is chosen, notice must go by U.S. mail to the service or billing address on file.
A violation is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Louisiana law; the attorney general may enforce the Act and remedies include civil penalties, injunctions, restitution, and attorneys’ fees, and private actions remain available under the state's consumer protection statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — scope and key terms
This section defines the covered services (mass‑market broadband and one‑way cable/video programming), who counts as a customer (natural persons at residential addresses), what is a price increase (monthly recurring charges and mandatory fees but not government taxes), and what counts as written notice (mail, email, or text where the customer has elected those channels). Practically, those definitions set the statute’s perimeter: business accounts are out, promotional one‑time charges are ambiguous, and vendors that bundle services will need to identify which line items are 'monthly recurring' for notice purposes.
Advance notice timing and cancellation window
This is the operational core: providers must deliver notice at least 30 calendar days before a price increase takes effect. It builds in a fallback for short‑notice pass‑throughs—providers must notify as soon as practical and by the next billing cycle. The section also creates a concrete consumer protection remedy: customers have until the effective date or 30 days after notice to cancel or downgrade without early‑termination penalties tied solely to the increase, which will require providers to adapt contract‑management and billing systems to detect and waive those specific fees.
Required notice content and separation from bills
Notices must itemize current and new monthly charges line‑by‑line, state the effective date, give a brief reason for the increase, and tell customers how to obtain more information or exercise cancellation rights (toll‑free number and web address). The statute requires the notice to be sent separately from the bill, a detail that affects how statements and promotional inserts are produced and may increase mailing or electronic notice volumes.
Delivery methods and records retention
HB798 allows providers to use the customer's chosen billing channel for delivery; absent an election, providers must mail notice to the service or billing address. Providers must keep compliance records—sample notices and logs of dates and channels used—for two years after each increase's effective date. That retention requirement will likely require coordination with billing vendors, CRM systems, and legal holds to ensure defensible proof of delivery if challenged.
Protections for customers exercising rights
The statute bars providers from treating a customer's cancellation or downgrade exercised under the Act as a contract breach or charging fees triggered solely by the price increase. It preserves providers’ ability to collect other lawful charges—such as unreturned equipment fees—so providers must distinguish between early‑termination penalties tied to contract length and other collectible balances.
Enforcement through Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices law
Violations are explicitly an unfair or deceptive trade practice under Louisiana law, giving the attorney general authority to seek civil penalties, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees; private suits under the same statute remain available. This ties the new notice obligation directly to the state's existing consumer protection enforcement framework and creates exposure beyond administrative sanctions.
Construction with federal law and local franchise authority
The provision clarifies the Act is a disclosure rule—not rate regulation—and requires harmony with federal statutes and FCC rules governing cable. It also preserves local franchise authorities' ability to impose stricter notice or customer‑service standards; compliance with a stricter federal or franchise requirement satisfies the state rule. Providers operating under multiple regimes will need to follow the most stringent applicable requirement.
Attorney general rulemaking authority
The AG may adopt rules under the APA to implement the statute, including formats for reasonable notices and recordkeeping standards. The delegated rulemaking power means key operational details—what constitutes adequate itemization, acceptable electronic delivery proofs, and log formats—may be set by regulation rather than statute, so providers should monitor forthcoming AG rules for compliance specifics.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Louisiana residential subscribers — receive clearer, itemized notices before price changes and a statutory right to cancel or downgrade without paying early‑termination fees tied solely to the increase.
- Consumer advocacy groups — gain a state disclosure standard that strengthens complaints and supports litigation under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices law.
- Competing providers and new entrants — benefit from standardized disclosure that reduces surprise fees as a competitive advantage and may level the marketplace for transparent pricing.
- Local franchise authorities and regulators — get clarification that state law sets a disclosure floor and can be harmonized with stricter local or federal notice obligations, simplifying enforcement coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- Broadband and cable providers (incumbent ISPs and MVPDs) — must update billing systems, notice templates, and customer‑service processes to generate separate, itemized notices and to detect and waive early‑termination penalties tied to increases.
- Small or regional providers and third‑party billing vendors — face proportionally higher implementation costs for system changes and recordkeeping, and may need to absorb additional mailing or communication expenses.
- Billing and CRM vendors — will need to implement new functionality to support notice separation, logging of delivery channels, and two‑year retention, which may translate into higher fees for provider customers.
- Provider legal and compliance teams — will carry enforcement risk and litigation exposure because the enforcement mechanism is the state’s unfair trade practices statute, which allows civil penalties and private suits.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
HB798 balances the consumer interest in transparent, actionable advance notice against the operational and legal burdens placed on providers; it solves surprise billing at the cost of added compliance complexity, potential litigation exposure, and an uncertain interface with federal and franchising notice regimes—leaving no obvious single winner where both interests are strong.
The bill emphasizes notice and customer rights but leaves several implementation details ambiguous. "Price increase" is defined broadly to include various mandatory fees, but the statute does not detail treatment of promotional rolloffs, bundled discounts, or tiered packages—areas where providers may change line‑item labeling to avoid triggering the notice requirement. The requirement that notice be "separate" from the bill is clear in principle, but the law does not specify acceptable formats for electronic delivery or what constitutes proof of receipt for email and text; the attorney general’s forthcoming rules will therefore be consequential.
Enforcement under the state unfair trade practices law creates potential for private class actions and aggressive AG enforcement, raising litigation risk. The interplay with federal cable notice rules and local franchise obligations is also a source of friction: providers that operate across jurisdictions will need to comply with the strictest applicable rule, and disputes may arise about preemption and whether a particular federal or franchise notice meets the Act’s itemization expectations.
Finally, the exception for changes outside a provider's reasonable control (e.g., programmer pass‑throughs) is helpful in theory but may be litigated—providers and plaintiffs will likely disagree about what counts as 'reasonable control' and when the clock runs for the 'next billing cycle' notification deadline.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.