The Timeshare Transparency Act is the most specific federal attempt in years to regulate how timeshares are sold in the United States, and in 2026 it exists in two nearly identical forms: Senate bill S. 3502 and House bill H.R. 9255. Neither has passed. Both are sitting in committee. But the bill text is short, plain, and unusually readable, which makes it worth reading line by line rather than through the press releases written about it.
This article is built from the actual enrolled text of both bills as published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office, the sponsors’ own press materials, the AARP endorsement letter filed with the Senate, and the April 2026 Senate Commerce Committee exchange in which the Federal Trade Commission chairman answered a direct question about timeshare complaint trends. Every number and quotation below is linked to the document it came from. Nothing here is a prediction of what Congress will do.
It matters to read the Timeshare Transparency Act rather than the coverage of it, because the coverage has been imprecise. The Senate sponsors call their bill the “Timeshare Pricing Transparency Act” in their press release, while the short title inside the bill itself is simply the “Timeshare Transparency Act.” AARP’s endorsement letter uses the press-release name. The House version carries the bill-text name. Those are the same legislation described three different ways, and the difference has already caused search confusion for owners trying to track it.
This piece belongs to our ongoing public-record series for owners. If you are trying to get out of a contract you already signed, the Timeshare Transparency Act is not your remedy, and our guides to what an exit actually costs in 2026, state rescission deadlines, and how to vet an exit firm before paying anyone will be more useful to you today. Read this one to understand what the rules may look like for the next buyer.
Quick answer: The Timeshare Transparency Act (S. 3502, introduced December 16, 2025; H.R. 9255, introduced June 10, 2026) would make it unlawful to sell a timeshare unless the contract puts every acquisition and ongoing cost in one itemized document, names every fee the company can change and how it must notify you, lists every way you can end ownership, and grants a 14-day penalty-free cancellation right. Buyers must also get to read the paperwork privately. The FTC would enforce it. Neither bill has passed.
What Is the Timeshare Transparency Act, and Who Introduced It in Congress?
The Timeshare Transparency Act is a bipartisan federal bill whose entire operative content fits on three pages. Its stated purpose, printed at the top of both versions, is “to establish requirements with respect to the sale of timeshares to improve acquisition transparency, and for other purposes.” The word that carries the weight there is acquisition. The bill regulates the moment of sale. It does not regulate what happens to you afterward, and it does not create a way out of a contract you signed years ago.
Senator John Curtis (R-UT) introduced the Senate version, S. 3502, on December 16, 2025, for himself and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA). It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. That committee assignment matters, because Commerce is the committee with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission, and the Timeshare Transparency Act hands enforcement to the FTC rather than creating a new agency or a private right of action.
The House companion, H.R. 9255, was introduced roughly six months later on June 10, 2026, by Representative Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania for himself and Representative Kathy Castor of Florida. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Two sponsors from Pennsylvania and Florida is not an accident: Florida has more timeshare inventory than any other state, and Pennsylvania has been the site of high-profile legacy-resort wind-downs that left deeded owners exposed.
A note on naming, because it trips people up. Senator Curtis’s December 2025 announcement calls the legislation the “Timeshare Pricing Transparency Act,” and AARP’s endorsement letter uses that name too. The short title written into Section 1 of both S. 3502 and H.R. 9255 is the “Timeshare Transparency Act.” When you search for the bill, search the bill number. The bill number is the only unambiguous identifier.
The Timeshare Transparency Act is also notably narrow by design. It does not cap prices. It does not cap maintenance fees. It does not ban high-pressure sales presentations, license salespeople, or require a cooling-off period longer than 14 days. It does one thing: it forces information onto the page before you sign, and it gives you two weeks to change your mind after you do.
What Would the Timeshare Transparency Act Actually Require in a Timeshare Contract?
Section 2(a) of the Timeshare Transparency Act makes it unlawful to enter into a timeshare agreement unless five conditions are satisfied. Four of them are contract contents. The fifth is a procedural right that has to be honored before you sign. Here is each one in the bill’s own structure, followed by what it would mean in a real sales gallery.
| Bill provision | Statutory text (condensed) | What it would mean in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Sec. 2(a)(1)(A) | “In a single document, an itemized specification of all the costs required to acquire and maintain ownership of the timeshare, including ongoing fees” | One page listing purchase price, closing costs, financing charges, annual maintenance fees, club dues, exchange fees, and assessments — not scattered across a 60-page packet |
| Sec. 2(a)(1)(B) | “A specification of each fee that may be altered by the timeshare company and an explanation of the notice, including the timing of such notice” | The contract must name which fees can rise and tell you how much advance warning you get before they do |
| Sec. 2(a)(1)(C) | “A specification of each option available to the individual for ending ownership of the timeshare” | The developer must write down, in the contract, every legitimate exit route it offers — deed-back, surrender, resale restrictions, or none |
| Sec. 2(a)(1)(D) | “The individual may terminate the agreement, without penalty, during the 14-day period beginning on the date on which such individual enters into such agreement” | A nationwide 14-day cancellation floor written into the contract itself |
| Sec. 2(a)(2) | “Free from the supervision of an employee of the timeshare company, is provided an opportunity to review all documents” | You get to read the paperwork without a closer in the room |
Read together, those five requirements describe a transaction that most timeshare buyers would not recognize. The itemized-cost provision in particular is aimed squarely at the practice of quoting a monthly payment rather than a total cost of ownership. Our breakdown of the difference between a timeshare loan and maintenance fees exists precisely because so many owners discover only later that they signed up for two separate, permanent obligations owed to two different parties.
The word “all” in subparagraph (A) is doing enormous work. A faithful reading requires the itemization to include costs that developers today disclose in scattered form or not at all: annual maintenance fees, club or program dues, reservation and exchange fees, transfer fees, and the fact that maintenance obligations continue for the life of the interest. Whether the FTC would read “all” that broadly in a rulemaking is the single biggest open question in the Timeshare Transparency Act.
Why Is the Timeshare Transparency Act’s 14-Day Cancellation Window the Most Important Provision?
Of everything in the Timeshare Transparency Act, the 14-day penalty-free cancellation right is the provision most likely to change outcomes for real buyers, and it is worth understanding exactly how it is drafted. Subparagraph (D) does not create a free-floating statutory right. It requires the contract to contain a provision stating the right. That drafting choice has consequences.
Because the right lives inside the agreement, a buyer who was given a compliant contract can point to a term of their own contract rather than arguing about a statute the seller may dispute applies. That is easier to enforce in practice. It also means that if a developer omits the clause, the sale itself is unlawful under Section 2(a), which is what triggers FTC enforcement.
The clock is also drafted plainly: the 14-day period begins “on the date on which such individual enters into such agreement.” There is no delivery-of-documents trigger, no recorded-deed trigger, and no exception for onsite versus offsite sales. Compare that to the patchwork of state rescission statutes, several of which start the clock on receipt of a public offering statement, or extend the window when the buyer never toured the property.
Fourteen days is also, in most states, longer than what owners have today. Florida gives 10 days. Nevada gives 5. California gives 7. Tennessee gives 10 days after signing with an onsite inspection, and 15 days without one. Our state-by-state rescission guide tracks the full range, which runs from roughly 3 to 15 days depending on jurisdiction and contract type.
There is a practical caveat that the Timeshare Transparency Act does not address. Rescission windows fail owners far more often because of how the cancellation must be delivered than because of length. Most state statutes require written notice, postmarked or received within the window, sent to a specific address. Missing the address or the postmark is the usual reason a timely cancellation fails. If you are inside a rescission window right now, use our cancellation letter template and deadline rules and send it certified mail today.
What Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Mean by Reviewing Documents “Free From the Supervision” of a Salesperson?
Section 2(a)(2) is the provision nobody is writing about, and it may be the most operationally disruptive line in the Timeshare Transparency Act. It requires that the buyer, before entering the agreement and “free from the supervision of an employee of the timeshare company,” be given an opportunity to review all documents associated with the agreement, including the disclosures required by paragraph (1).
Anyone who has sat through a timeshare presentation understands why this clause exists. The standard sales architecture is continuous supervised contact: a tour, a table close, a manager drop-in, and a signing room. The paperwork is typically produced at the end, summarized aloud, and signed under time pressure. A statutory right to take the documents somewhere private and read them removes the structural feature that the presentation depends on.
The bill does not say how long the private review has to last, where it has to occur, or whether the buyer can take the documents home. It says “an opportunity.” That is the kind of open term the FTC would have to fill in through the rulemaking Section 2(b)(3) directs it to conduct. Until that rulemaking exists, the practical scope of the Timeshare Transparency Act’s private-review right is unknowable.
For today, the private-review principle is something buyers can simply exercise on their own without waiting for Congress. You are allowed to leave a presentation with the paperwork unsigned. You are allowed to say you will decide at home. Our guide to surviving an owner update meeting without buying more points walks through the specific scripts used to keep you in the room and how to exit them politely.
Why Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Require Developers to Disclose Exit Options?
Subparagraph (C) requires the contract to specify “each option available to the individual for ending ownership of the timeshare.” This is the provision that speaks directly to the exit industry that grew up around the gap it addresses. If every buyer knew at signing exactly what the developer’s surrender or deed-back terms were, a large share of the demand for third-party exit services would evaporate.
The requirement is also, read strictly, a disclosure requirement and not a mandate. The Timeshare Transparency Act does not require a developer to offer an exit option. It requires the developer to specify each option that is available. A developer whose honest answer is “there is no voluntary exit program and resale is restricted” would satisfy the bill by writing exactly that. That is still a meaningful improvement over silence, because it is a written representation a buyer can later hold the seller to.
Owners regularly find out the hard way that the exit options described verbally at the sales table do not exist in writing. Our analysis of why developers do not actually buy back your timeshare documents how narrow most branded surrender programs are in practice, and our look at why timeshares sell for a dollar on eBay explains the resale reality that a written exit disclosure would have to confront.
How Would the Timeshare Transparency Act Change the Way Maintenance Fee Increases Are Disclosed?
Subparagraph (B) requires the contract to specify each fee the company may alter, plus “an explanation of the notice, including the timing of such notice,” that the buyer will receive when a fee changes. In an industry where the recurring cost is the cost that ends up hurting, this is the sleeper provision of the Timeshare Transparency Act.
The scale of the problem is documented in the industry’s own research. ARDA’s State of the Vacation Timeshare Industry, 2026 Edition, published June 23, 2026 and prepared by Ernst & Young, reports that the average billed maintenance fee reached $1,550 per weekly interval equivalent in 2025, a 4.7% increase over 2024. The same report puts 2021 at $1,120. That is a 38.4% increase in five years.
What the Timeshare Transparency Act would not do is limit those increases. A developer or association could raise fees exactly as much as it does today, provided the contract disclosed that the fee was alterable and described the notice the owner would receive. Transparency is the remedy the bill chooses. Price control is not. That is a defensible legislative choice, and it is also a real limit on what the bill delivers.
The notice-timing requirement could still matter enormously for owners facing large one-time charges. If a contract had to spell out how much warning an owner gets before an assessment lands, the surprise element of a special assessment would be reduced, even though the amount would not be. Our guide to why maintenance fees keep rising explains the reserve-funding and delinquency mechanics that drive the increases the bill would merely require you to be warned about.
How Would the Timeshare Transparency Act Be Enforced, and by Whom?
Section 2(b) of the Timeshare Transparency Act assigns enforcement entirely to the Federal Trade Commission. A violation of Section 2(a) is treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B). The Commission enforces it “in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties” as the FTC Act itself.
That mechanism is more consequential than it sounds. Treating a violation as a rule violation is what unlocks the FTC’s ability to seek civil penalties and consumer redress, rather than only injunctive relief. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson made exactly this point in a different context during the April 2026 Senate Commerce hearing, telling Senator Curtis that without a rule he “can’t put money back in wronged consumers’ pockets” under Section 5 alone. The Timeshare Transparency Act is drafted to avoid that gap.
Section 2(b)(3) then directs the Commission to promulgate rules under 5 U.S.C. 553, the ordinary notice-and-comment provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than the far slower Magnuson-Moss procedures the FTC normally must use for trade-regulation rules. Congress granting APA rulemaking authority is a deliberate accelerant. It is also the point at which the industry would have its most serious opportunity to shape the outcome through comments.
What the Timeshare Transparency Act conspicuously does not include is a private right of action. Nothing in the text lets an individual buyer sue a developer for a violation. Nothing lets a state attorney general enforce the federal provision directly. If a developer sells you a non-compliant contract, your remedy under this bill is to report it and hope the FTC acts. That limitation is worth weighing against how it is being described publicly.
Subparagraph (b)(2)(C) preserves the FTC’s existing authority under any other provision of law, so the Commission could still bring conventional Section 5 deception cases alongside Timeshare Transparency Act claims. That is how the FTC has pursued the timeshare exit sector already, as documented in our coverage of the $140 million judgment against the Square One operation.
Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Preempt State Timeshare Law?
No, and the bill says so explicitly. Section 2(d) of the Timeshare Transparency Act is a rule of construction: “Nothing in this section may be interpreted to preclude a State from imposing or enforcing any requirement relating to the sale of a timeshare that provides greater protection to consumers than the protection provided by the requirements of this section.”
That is a consumer-protection floor, not a ceiling. In plain terms: if your state already gives buyers something stronger than the Timeshare Transparency Act requires, your state law survives untouched. If your state gives less, the federal minimum would apply on top. Tennessee’s 15-day window for sales without an onsite inspection, for example, would remain longer than the federal 14 days.
Floor-not-ceiling drafting is common in consumer statutes and it is a meaningful signal about the bill’s political posture. Preemption is the provision industry lobbyists usually fight hardest for, because a single national standard that displaces stricter state law is worth more to a national developer than any disclosure requirement costs. The Timeshare Transparency Act as introduced gives up that prize. Whether it survives markup in that form is a different question.
For owners, the practical takeaway is that state law remains the operative law for anything you do this year. Rescission deadlines, foreclosure procedure, deficiency rules, and association powers are all governed by the state where the resort sits, not by any pending federal bill. Our guides to judicial versus non-judicial timeshare foreclosure and what actually happens if you stop paying are built around that state-by-state reality.
How Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Define a “Timeshare” and a “Timeshare Company”?
Definitions decide scope, and the definitions in Section 2(e) of the Timeshare Transparency Act are broad in some directions and pointedly narrow in others. Both bills use identical language.
A “timeshare” is defined as an interest purchased in any arrangement, plan, scheme, or similar device — “not including any exchange program” — whether by membership, agreement, tenancy in common, sale, lease, deed, rental agreement, license, right-to-use agreement, or any other means, where the purchaser receives a right to use accommodations, facilities, or recreational sites for a specific period of less than one full year in any given year, not necessarily consecutive years, extending more than three years.
That definition is deliberately structure-agnostic. It captures deeded weeks and points-based club memberships alike, along with right-to-use contracts and leases. If you have ever wondered whether your ownership form would be covered, our explainer on points versus deeded weeks maps the structures the Timeshare Transparency Act would sweep in.
Two carve-outs deserve attention. First, exchange programs are expressly excluded. Companies whose product is the exchange network itself would fall outside the definition. Second, the interest must extend for more than three years, which excludes short-term vacation club products marketed as trial memberships. Both exclusions leave room for products that behave like timeshares to be sold outside the disclosure regime.
A “timeshare company” is “any person that sells, offers, arranges, or otherwise engages in the business of providing a timeshare to a consumer, directly or indirectly, for monetary consideration.” The phrase “offers, arranges” and “indirectly” is doing real work: it would reach third-party marketing companies and independent sales contractors, not just the developer whose name is on the resort.
How Do the Senate and House Versions of the Timeshare Transparency Act Differ?
The two bills are close to word-for-word identical, but there is one substantive drafting difference in the operative sentence, and it is the kind of detail that gets fixed in markup precisely because someone noticed it. We compared the GPO text of both bills line by line.
| S. 3502 (Senate) | H.R. 9255 (House) | |
|---|---|---|
| Introduced | December 16, 2025 | June 10, 2026 |
| Sponsors | Sen. John Curtis (R-UT), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) | Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) |
| Referred to | Commerce, Science, and Transportation | Energy and Commerce |
| Sec. 2(a) opening | “unlawful for a timeshare company and an individual to enter into a timeshare agreement” | “unlawful for a timeshare company to enter into a timeshare agreement with an individual” |
| Five required elements | Identical | Identical |
| FTC enforcement, APA rulemaking | Identical | Identical |
| 90-day applicability, state savings clause, definitions | Identical | Identical |
The difference in that one line is not cosmetic. As drafted, the Senate version of the Timeshare Transparency Act makes it unlawful for “a timeshare company and an individual” to enter into a non-compliant agreement, which on a literal reading places the individual buyer inside the prohibited conduct. The House version rewrites it so only the company can violate the section. The House phrasing is almost certainly what both sponsors intend, and the Senate text would likely be conformed if the bill advanced.
We flag it because it is verifiable from the primary documents and because it illustrates something useful about the Timeshare Transparency Act generally: this is an early-stage bill. It has not been through committee markup, it has not been scored, and it has not absorbed the amendments that industry and consumer groups will both propose. Reading it as settled policy would be a mistake.
Who Supports the Timeshare Transparency Act, and What Evidence Are They Citing?
The most substantial public endorsement of the Timeshare Transparency Act came from AARP on the day the Senate bill was introduced. In a December 16, 2025 letter to Senators Curtis and Schiff, Bill Sweeney, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at AARP, wrote that the organization “is pleased to endorse” the bill and singled out the itemized cost disclosure and the 14-day cancellation period as the provisions it found most encouraging.
That letter contains the most-cited statistic in the entire debate. AARP states that “according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, timeshare fraud complaints resulted in more than $50 million in reported losses in 2024 alone,” and that older adults are disproportionately targeted. AARP describes its advocacy as being on behalf of 125 million Americans age 50 and older. Owners should note that this figure describes reported fraud losses, not the cost of ordinary timeshare ownership.
The sponsors’ own press release also cites a figure that deserves a caution flag. It states that approximately 85% of timeshare owners regret their purchase, and it links to a Yahoo Finance article rather than to a primary survey. That number circulates widely and is not, as far as we can verify, drawn from a peer-reviewed or government dataset. We report that the sponsors cite it. We do not adopt it, and neither should you.
Senator Curtis has pursued the issue outside the bill as well. At an April 2026 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing, he asked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson directly how the Commission tracks deceptive practices in the timeshare market. Ferguson’s answer, published in full on the senator’s website, is the single most useful regulator statement available on the subject.
Ferguson said: “Over the last several years, we have not seen an increase in the number of reports relating to timeshares, but the alleged loss for each of those reports has gone up substantially.” He added that the Commission is “taking it seriously” and agreed it is “something the Commission needs to look at.” That is a careful, evidence-bounded statement, and it is a better foundation for the Timeshare Transparency Act than the 85% figure.
On the industry side, we found no public statement from the American Resort Development Association endorsing or opposing the Timeshare Transparency Act as of this writing. ARDA maintains a bill-tracking dashboard for legislation it is engaged on. Owners who want to know the trade association’s posture should check that dashboard directly rather than rely on secondhand characterizations, including ours.
What Would the Timeshare Transparency Act NOT Do for Owners Who Already Signed?
This is the question that matters most to the people reading this page, and the answer is direct: for existing owners, the Timeshare Transparency Act does essentially nothing. Section 2(c) states that subsection (a) “shall apply to agreements entered into on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.” It is prospective only. There is no retroactive application, no look-back, and no remedy for a contract signed before the effective date.
| What the Timeshare Transparency Act would do | What it would not do |
|---|---|
| Require one itemized document listing all acquisition and ongoing costs | Cap purchase prices, maintenance fees, or special assessments |
| Require disclosure of which fees can change and what notice you get | Limit how much or how often a fee can be raised |
| Require the contract to specify every available exit option | Require a developer to offer any exit option at all |
| Create a 14-day penalty-free cancellation right in the contract | Reopen the cancellation window on any existing contract |
| Guarantee unsupervised document review before signing | Limit presentation length, gifts, or sales incentives |
| Give the FTC rule-violation enforcement and APA rulemaking authority | Create a private right of action or state AG enforcement of the federal provision |
| Preserve stronger state consumer protections as a floor | Apply to exchange programs or interests of three years or less |
| Apply to agreements signed 90+ days after enactment | Apply retroactively to any agreement signed before that date |
It also does not regulate the timeshare exit industry. Nothing in the Timeshare Transparency Act touches the companies that charge owners thousands of dollars up front to get them out of contracts. That entire sector is governed by ordinary FTC deception authority, state consumer-protection statutes, and state attorney general enforcement, which is exactly how the largest recent cases were brought. Our documented timeline of the exit-firm crisis tracks that record.
Finally, it does not change your leverage in a dispute today. If you are contemplating litigation, the arbitration clause in your existing contract governs, not any pending bill. Our analysis of whether you can sue a timeshare company in 2026 walks through delegation clauses, class-action waivers, and small-claims limits, none of which the Timeshare Transparency Act addresses.
Where Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Stand in 2026, and What Are Its Odds?
As of this writing in August 2026, both versions of the Timeshare Transparency Act are in committee and neither has received a hearing, a markup, or a floor vote. S. 3502 has been in Senate Commerce since December 16, 2025. H.R. 9255 has been in House Energy and Commerce since June 10, 2026. The most recent action on the House bill is the referral itself.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| December 16, 2025 | S. 3502 introduced by Sen. Curtis for himself and Sen. Schiff; read twice; referred to Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation | GPO bill text |
| December 16, 2025 | AARP endorsement letter transmitted to both sponsors | AARP letter (Bill Sweeney) |
| December 16, 2025 | Sponsors announce the bill as the “Timeshare Pricing Transparency Act” | Curtis press release |
| April 2026 | Sen. Curtis questions FTC Chairman Ferguson on timeshare practices at a Senate Commerce hearing | Curtis press release with full transcript |
| June 10, 2026 | H.R. 9255 introduced by Rep. Thompson for himself and Rep. Castor; referred to House Energy and Commerce | GPO bill text |
| August 2026 | Both bills remain in committee; no hearing, markup, or floor action recorded | Congress.gov bill status |
What does that mean for the odds? Honestly assessed, the base rate is against it. The overwhelming majority of bills introduced in any Congress never receive a committee vote, and a bill introduced in the first session that has drawn no committee action by the middle of the second session is behind schedule. Every unpassed bill also dies at the end of the Congress and must be reintroduced.
There are countervailing signals worth weighing. The Timeshare Transparency Act is genuinely bipartisan in both chambers, which removes the most common cause of death. It is short, imposes no federal spending, and creates no new agency, so it would score cheaply. Its sponsors sit on or near the committees of jurisdiction, and Senator Curtis has been raising the underlying issue with the FTC chairman directly. Those are the ingredients that occasionally move a small consumer bill.
The realistic paths forward are three: committee markup and standalone passage, attachment to a larger consumer-protection or appropriations vehicle, or reintroduction in the next Congress with a fuller cosponsor list. Attachment to a vehicle is historically the most common route for a bill of this size. None of those paths produces a law that helps you this year.
Even in the best case, the timeline is long. Enactment would be followed by the 90-day applicability delay in Section 2(c), and then by the FTC rulemaking that Section 2(b)(3) directs, which under ordinary notice-and-comment procedure takes many months at minimum. A buyer signing a contract in 2027 or 2028 would be the first realistic beneficiary of the Timeshare Transparency Act.
What Would Change on the Sales Floor If the Timeshare Transparency Act Became Law?
It is worth walking through the mechanics, because the Timeshare Transparency Act is an unusually operational bill. It does not describe outcomes. It describes documents and moments.
First, the pricing conversation would change. Today a presentation frequently closes on a monthly payment figure. Under the Timeshare Transparency Act, a single document itemizing every acquisition and maintenance cost would have to be part of the agreement, which means the total-cost-of-ownership number would exist on paper in the room. Sellers would still be free to emphasize the monthly figure, but the buyer would be holding the other number.
Second, the escalation conversation would change. A contract that must name every alterable fee and describe the notice given before a change cannot simultaneously leave the impression that annual costs are fixed. Given that ARDA’s own data shows the average maintenance fee rising from $1,120 in 2021 to $1,550 in 2025, a written escalation disclosure is a material fact that some buyers would act on.
Third, the exit conversation would change most of all. Written specification of every available exit option would replace whatever is currently said verbally about resale value and buyback. For products with no voluntary surrender program and restricted resale, the honest disclosure is stark, and it would be printed in the contract. That is the provision the industry would most likely contest in an FTC rulemaking.
Fourth, the room itself would change. An enforceable right to review the documents free from the supervision of a company employee is incompatible with a continuous supervised close. In practice, developers would likely build a compliant private-review step into the process and document it, which is how regulated industries typically absorb requirements like this one.
Fifth, the 14 days after signing would change. A uniform federal cancellation floor, stated in the contract rather than buried in a state statute, is easier for a buyer to find and act on. Whether owners would use it is a separate question. Rescission windows are underused today largely because buyers do not realize they exist, which is exactly the gap the Timeshare Transparency Act is trying to close.
How Does the Timeshare Transparency Act’s 14 Days Compare to Existing State Rescission Law?
Every U.S. state with meaningful timeshare inventory already has a rescission statute. The Timeshare Transparency Act would not replace them; because of the Section 2(d) savings clause it would sit underneath them as a national minimum. The comparison below covers four states we cross-checked while researching this article, alongside the federal figure the bill would establish.
| Jurisdiction | Cancellation window | Effect if the Timeshare Transparency Act passed |
|---|---|---|
| Timeshare Transparency Act (federal floor) | 14 days from the date the agreement is entered into | Applies wherever state law gives less |
| Nevada | 5 calendar days | Federal 14-day floor would govern |
| California | 7 days | Federal 14-day floor would govern |
| Florida | 10 days | Federal 14-day floor would govern |
| Tennessee | 10 days with onsite inspection; 15 days without | State law would remain longer in the no-inspection case |
| National range across states | Roughly 3 to 15 days | Most states would see the window lengthen |
Two structural differences matter more than the raw day count. First, most state statutes tie the start of the clock to something other than the signature date — commonly receipt of the public offering statement or the purchase contract. The Timeshare Transparency Act uses the signature date flatly, which is simpler to compute but can be less generous where a state clock starts later.
Second, state statutes typically prescribe how cancellation must be delivered and to what address, and they often void any attempted waiver of the right. The Timeshare Transparency Act says nothing about delivery method or anti-waiver. That is a gap an FTC rulemaking would need to fill, because a cancellation right with no specified delivery method invites disputes about whether notice was ever given.
How Does the Timeshare Transparency Act Fit the Broader 2026 Timeshare Enforcement Picture?
The Timeshare Transparency Act did not appear in a vacuum. It arrived during the most active period of federal and state timeshare-adjacent enforcement in years, and understanding that context explains both why the bill exists and what it is aimed at.
On April 20, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that a court had ordered the operator of a timeshare exit scheme to pay $140 million — $95 million in consumer redress and $45 million in civil penalties — in an action brought by the Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf together with the State of Wisconsin. The order also permanently banned the defendant from marketing timeshare exit services. We covered that judgment in detail when it landed.
State attorneys general have been equally active. The Washington Attorney General’s office publishes a consumer page on its Timeshare Exit Team resolution, and the Missouri Attorney General has sued a Branson-based exit company under state consumer-protection law. Our public-record reviews of individual firms, including Timeshare Exit Team, Timeshare Compliance, and Wesley Financial Group, are built entirely from those public records.
Here is the important structural point. Every one of those actions targets the exit side of the market. The Timeshare Transparency Act is the first significant federal proposal in this cycle aimed at the sale side. That is a coherent theory of the problem: if the sale is transparent and the buyer has a real 14-day window, fewer owners end up desperate enough to pay an unvetted exit firm years later.
The industry backdrop is a market that is stable in dollars but shrinking in footprint. ARDA’s 2026 report puts 2025 sales volume at $10.7 billion across 432,780 transactions, at an average price of $24,740 per transaction, with occupancy at 79.9% against 62.3% for hotels. At the same time it reports an accelerating effort to sunset older resorts, producing roughly a 9% decline in resort and unit counts since 2020. Owners at those properties are covered in our resort closure tracker.
| U.S. timeshare industry, 2025 | Figure |
|---|---|
| Resorts | 1,434 |
| Units (including lock-offs) | 188,700 (221,100) |
| Sales volume | $10.7 billion |
| Transactions | 432,780 |
| Average price per transaction | $24,740 |
| Average maintenance fee per interval | $1,550 (up 4.7% year over year) |
| Rental revenue | $3.3 billion |
| Occupancy | 79.9% (hotels: 62.3%) |
Those numbers are the scale the Timeshare Transparency Act would regulate: roughly 430,000 new timeshare sales a year, each averaging nearly $25,000 up front, plus a recurring obligation now averaging $1,550 annually and rising. A disclosure requirement applied at that volume is not a small intervention, even if the bill itself is only three pages long.
What Should Owners and Buyers Do in 2026 While the Timeshare Transparency Act Is Pending?
Nothing in the Timeshare Transparency Act helps you today, so the practical question is what to do in its absence. The answer differs sharply depending on whether you are inside a rescission window, an existing owner, or someone considering a purchase.
If You Signed Within the Last Two Weeks
- Find the rescission section of your contract and the statutory deadline for the state where the resort is located. Do not rely on what you were told verbally.
- Send written cancellation immediately by certified mail with return receipt, to the exact address named in the contract. Keep the postmark receipt.
- Do not call to negotiate first. Calls do not stop the clock, and the window is measured in days.
- Use our free cancellation letter template and confirm your deadline against our state rescission guide.
If You Are an Existing Owner
- Build the document file the Timeshare Transparency Act would have given you: purchase contract, financing agreement, every annual fee statement, and every assessment notice.
- Separate the two debts. A purchase-money loan and an association maintenance obligation have different creditors and different consequences. Our loan versus fees breakdown explains which is which.
- Ask the developer, in writing, what voluntary surrender or deed-back options exist for your specific contract, and keep the written answer.
- If hardship is the driver, read our guide to divorce, medical, and job-loss exits before you assume nothing is available.
- Understand the downside before you stop paying anything. See the honest consequences guide and the credit impact guide.
- Plan for the estate side too. Our guides on what happens when you die and how heirs can disclaim cover the mechanics.
If You Are Considering a Purchase
- Give yourself the Timeshare Transparency Act’s protections voluntarily. Ask for every document in writing, take them off-site, and read them without a salesperson present.
- Ask for the total ten-year cost in writing: purchase price, financing, annual fees at the current rate, and the historical rate of fee increase at that specific resort.
- Ask for the exit options in writing. If the honest answer is that there are none, that answer is the disclosure the bill would require anyway.
- Check the resale market for the same product before you sign. Our resale market guide and whether timeshares are worth it in 2026 are the two pages to read first.
Where to Report a Problem Now
- FTC ReportFraud — the complaint database Chairman Ferguson described as the agency’s primary trend-detection tool.
- Your state attorney general’s consumer protection division, and the attorney general of the state where the resort is located.
- CFPB for anything involving a loan, credit card, or debt collector. See also our analysis of the Barclays timeshare card.
- The Better Business Bureau, whose complaint volume Senator Curtis cited to the FTC chairman.
- Your senators and representative, if you want the Timeshare Transparency Act itself to move. Committee referral is the stage at which constituent contact matters most.
One caution that has nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with the moment. Whenever timeshare legislation gets press coverage, solicitation follows. If someone contacts you claiming the Timeshare Transparency Act entitles you to a refund, a settlement, or a cancellation, that claim is false on the face of the bill text, which is prospective only. Our exit scam guide and 12 red flags framework cover the pattern.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Timeshare Transparency Act
What is the Timeshare Transparency Act?
The Timeshare Transparency Act is a bipartisan federal bill, introduced as S. 3502 in the Senate and H.R. 9255 in the House, that would make it unlawful to sell a timeshare unless the contract itemizes all acquisition and ongoing costs in a single document, identifies every fee the company can change and the notice you receive, specifies every option for ending ownership, and grants a 14-day penalty-free cancellation right. Buyers would also have to be given an opportunity to review the documents without a company employee present.
Has the Timeshare Transparency Act passed?
No. As of August 2026 neither version has passed. S. 3502 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on December 16, 2025, and H.R. 9255 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on June 10, 2026. Neither bill has received a committee hearing, a markup, or a floor vote. Any claim that the Timeshare Transparency Act is now law, or that it entitles you to a refund, is false. Verify current status at congress.gov.
Does the Timeshare Transparency Act let me cancel a timeshare I already own?
No. Section 2(c) of the Timeshare Transparency Act states that its requirements apply only to agreements entered into on or after the date 90 days after enactment. It is prospective only. There is no retroactive application and no remedy in the bill for a contract signed earlier. Existing owners looking for options should work from their contract, their state law, and the developer’s own surrender or deed-back program, not from this bill.
What is the 14-day cancellation period in the Timeshare Transparency Act?
Section 2(a)(1)(D) would require every timeshare agreement to contain a provision stating that the buyer may terminate the agreement, without penalty, during the 14-day period beginning on the date the buyer enters into the agreement. Because the right is written into the contract rather than existing only in statute, a buyer could point to a term of their own agreement. The bill does not specify how notice of cancellation must be delivered, which an FTC rulemaking would need to address.
Who introduced the Timeshare Transparency Act?
Senator John Curtis (R-UT) introduced S. 3502 on December 16, 2025, for himself and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA). Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA) introduced the House companion, H.R. 9255, on June 10, 2026, for himself and Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL). The Senate sponsors refer to the legislation publicly as the Timeshare Pricing Transparency Act, while the short title inside both bills is the Timeshare Transparency Act.
Does the Timeshare Transparency Act cap maintenance fees?
No. The Timeshare Transparency Act contains no price control of any kind. It would require the contract to itemize ongoing fees and to name each fee the company can alter along with the notice you receive before a change, but it places no limit on the size or frequency of increases. ARDA’s 2026 report puts the average billed maintenance fee at $1,550 per interval in 2025, up 4.7% year over year and up from $1,120 in 2021.
Who would enforce the Timeshare Transparency Act?
The Federal Trade Commission, and only the FTC. A violation would be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, which is the mechanism that allows the Commission to seek civil penalties and consumer redress. The bill also directs the FTC to conduct rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. Notably, the Timeshare Transparency Act creates no private right of action and no direct state attorney general enforcement of the federal provision.
Does the Timeshare Transparency Act override my state’s rescission law?
No. Section 2(d) is an express savings clause stating that nothing in the section precludes a state from imposing or enforcing any requirement that gives consumers greater protection. The Timeshare Transparency Act would be a federal floor, not a ceiling. Where a state gives less than 14 days, the federal minimum would apply; where a state gives more, such as Tennessee’s 15 days for sales without an onsite inspection, the state law would continue to control.
Does the Timeshare Transparency Act regulate timeshare exit companies?
No. The Timeshare Transparency Act regulates the sale of a timeshare by a timeshare company, defined as a person who sells, offers, arranges, or otherwise engages in the business of providing a timeshare. Third-party exit and cancellation firms are outside that definition. They remain subject to ordinary FTC deception authority and state consumer-protection law, which is how the FTC and the State of Wisconsin obtained a $140 million judgment against one exit operation in April 2026.
When would the Timeshare Transparency Act take effect if it passed?
Section 2(c) delays applicability until 90 days after enactment, and Section 2(b)(3) then directs the FTC to promulgate implementing rules through ordinary notice-and-comment procedure, which typically takes many additional months. Realistically, even on a favorable legislative path, the first contracts governed by the Timeshare Transparency Act would be signed a year or more after passage. No one buying or owning a timeshare in 2026 should plan around it.
Key Takeaways
- It has not passed. S. 3502 has sat in Senate Commerce since December 16, 2025, and H.R. 9255 in House Energy and Commerce since June 10, 2026. No hearing, no markup, no floor vote.
- It is prospective only. Section 2(c) applies the requirements to agreements entered into 90 or more days after enactment. Nothing in it reopens an existing contract.
- Five requirements, one page. Itemized total costs in a single document, disclosure of alterable fees and notice timing, written specification of every exit option, a 14-day penalty-free cancellation clause, and unsupervised document review before signing.
- Fourteen days would beat most states. Florida gives 10 days, California 7, Nevada 5. Tennessee’s 15-day no-inspection window would remain longer.
- It is a floor, not a ceiling. The Section 2(d) savings clause expressly preserves any stronger state protection, which is the opposite of the preemption the industry usually seeks.
- The FTC alone would enforce it. Violations count as rule violations under 15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B), unlocking penalties and redress. There is no private right of action and no direct state AG enforcement of the federal provision.
- It caps nothing. Maintenance fees rose from an average of $1,120 per interval in 2021 to $1,550 in 2025 per ARDA. The bill would require disclosure of that risk, not restraint of it.
- It does not touch exit companies. Those firms remain governed by FTC deception authority and state law, the route that produced April 2026’s $140 million judgment.
- The Senate and House texts differ in one line. S. 3502 says “a timeshare company and an individual”; H.R. 9255 says “a timeshare company… with an individual.” The House wording is the one that makes sense.
- Anyone telling you this bill entitles you to a refund is wrong. Read the applicability clause yourself before you pay anyone who says otherwise.
- You can give yourself most of its protections today. Ask for every document, take it off-site, read it privately, and demand the exit options and total cost of ownership in writing.
About Alpha Timeshare Consultants
Alpha Timeshare Consultants is a Florida-incorporated consumer advocacy firm whose corporate name was originally established in 1985. The company provides timeshare exit services for owners across every major developer, including Wyndham, Marriott Vacation Club, Hilton Grand Vacations, Diamond Resorts, Westgate, Disney Vacation Club, Bluegreen, Holiday Inn Club Vacations, and Hyatt Residence Club.
The firm operates 100% in-house — with negotiators, attorneys on retainer, and a dedicated in-house credit solutions team all under one roof — holds an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, and offers a 36-month money-back guarantee in writing. We invite the same scrutiny we recommend you apply to any firm.
Verify our BBB profile at bbb.org, search PACER for any litigation history at pacer.uscourts.gov, confirm our Florida corporate registration through search.sunbiz.org, search FTC enforcement records, and search Florida AG actions.
The same verification framework that applies to evaluating any timeshare exit company applies to evaluating Alpha Timeshare Consultants. Apply it to both. Apply it to every firm. Learn more about evaluating timeshare exit firms, compare your options in our exit company versus attorney breakdown, or contact us for a free, no-pressure consultation.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. References to the Timeshare Transparency Act reflect the text of S. 3502 and H.R. 9255 as introduced in the 119th Congress and published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office, together with the sponsors’ public statements, the AARP endorsement letter, published Federal Trade Commission materials, and industry research published by ARDA.
Every claim above is sourced to a public document that readers can independently verify through the linked sources. Legislation changes, and bill status can change on any day; confirm the current status of any bill at congress.gov before relying on it. Nothing here predicts whether the Timeshare Transparency Act will become law.
Owners should perform independent verification through the cited sources and consult appropriate professionals before making any decision about any specific contract, firm, or course of action.
