Order 2014-1-9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

On the Fourteenth day of January, 2014

Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama Docket OST 2014-0001

Served January 14, 2014

Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 

14 CFR 399.84 

CONSENT ORDER

This consent order concerns Internet advertisements by Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a 

Vayama (Vayama) that violate the Department’s full fare advertising rule, 14 CFR 

399.84(a), and constitute a prohibited unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 41712. The order directs Vayama to cease and desist from future violations of section 

399.84 and section 41712, and assesses the company a compromise civil penalty of 

$80,000. 

Applicable Law

As a ticket agent,1 Vayama is subject to the advertising requirements of Part 399 of the 

Department’s rules. To ensure that consumers are not deceived and are given accurate 

and complete fare information on which to base their airline travel purchase decisions, 

section 399.84(a) requires that advertisements specifying airfares and air tour package 

prices state the entire price to be paid by the consumer.2 Specifically, any advertisement 

 1 A “ticket agent” is defined as “a person (except an air carrier, a foreign air carrier, or an employee of an 

air carrier or foreign air carrier) that as a principal or agent sells, offers for sale, negotiates for, or holds 

itself out as selling, providing, or arranging for, air transportation.” 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(45).

2 Although charges included within the single total price listed, e.g., government taxes, may be stated 

separately or through links or “pop ups” on websites that display the total price, such charges may not be 

false or misleading, may not be displayed as prominently as the total price, may not be presented in the 

same or larger size as the total price, and must provide cost information on a per-passenger basis that 

accurately reflects the cost of the item covered by the charge.
2

or solicitation for air transportation that displays a price for such transportation must state 

the entire price to be paid, including all taxes and government fees and all mandatory 

airline- and ticket agent-imposed fees. A ticket agent may state separately charges 

included within the total listed price provided that the statement is not false or 

misleading. Ticket agents who choose to provide supplementary information regarding 

the existence and amount of taxes, government fees, and carrier-imposed fees should 

ensure that, if grouped together, they are not described under a general rubric such as 

“taxes and fees.”3 Otherwise, consumers may not be aware that the total price to be paid 

includes an agent-imposed fee and may believe that the taxes and government fees 

associated with their airfare are higher than they actually are. Therefore, ticket agents 

must clearly indicate that the amount includes both taxes and government fees, and agentimposed fees. Failure to accurately identify agent-imposed fees constitutes an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

Additionally, to comply with section 399.84(a), sellers of air transportation must, in all 

fare displays, state either the exact fare or round up to an amount greater than the exact 

fare.4 The requirement prohibits sellers of air transportation from providing consumers 

with fare quotes that are lower than the actual amounts, which may be particularly 

important on websites that display multiple flight options ranked from the lowest to the 

highest fare. Even slight differences in fare amounts on websites that display roundeddown fare amounts are likely to deceptively induce some consumers to select a flight 

option that was not the itinerary or carrier he or she would have chosen if provided with 

more accurate information. We consider the failure to show either the exact fare or to 

round up to an amount greater than the exact fare to be an unfair and deceptive trade 

practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 14 CFR 399.84(a) and 49 

U.S.C. § 41712. 

Facts and Conclusions

For a period of time in 2013, after a consumer selected a fare from a display of fare 

options, Vayama added its own fee to taxes and displayed the total amount under a 

general “Taxes and Fees” category on a purchase review screen. This screen would 

include the “Base Fare” and then an amount labeled as “Taxes and Fees.” The amount 

would not differentiate what portion of the total consisted of taxes and government fees

and what portion was Vayama’s own service charge. Therefore, consumers were unable 

to determine how much of the total price was attributable to the government and how 

much was attributable to Vayama. For example, Vayama would list a “Base Fare” for a 

domestic ticket of $178.60 and “Taxes and Fees” of $60.20 for a total fare of $238.80. 

 

3 Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements (Issued February 21, 2012), available at 

http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/guidance-aviation-rules-and-statutes.

4 Guidance on the Use of Rounding in Air Fare Advertisements (Issued February 28, 2012), available at 

http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/guidance-aviation-rules-and-statutes.
3

However the actual amount of the taxes and government fees was less than $60.20

because Vayama had included its service fee of $25.00 in this amount.5

For a period of time in 2012 and 2013, Vayama’s homepage advertised fares that were 

rounded down to the whole dollar below the actual total fare amount. For example, the 

webpage featured flight deals from various cities, such as Baltimore. Under the “Your 

flight deals from Baltimore” section, Vayama advertised fares to Moscow. When a 

consumer clicked the accompanying link, the landing page displayed a fare quotation for 

$707. However, a consumer who selected the $707 fare from Baltimore to Moscow was 

then taken to a third page, where the full fare, $707.37, was finally displayed. Compliant 

agents would have advertised this fare as $707.37 or rounded the fare up to $708, for 

example. 

By failing to accurately state the exact fare or round up the advertised fare and failing to 

accurately distinguish between taxes and government fees and agent-imposed fees, 

Vayama violated section 399.84(a). Such violations also constitute unfair and deceptive 

practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

 Mitigation

In mitigation, Vayama emphasizes that it takes compliance with the Department’s 

consumer regulations very seriously, including the Department’s advertising and website 

display requirements. Concerning the fare rounding issue, Vayama states that it only 

showed fees rounded down to the nearest dollar amount on initial price 

quotations. Visitors to Vayama.com who clicked on specific flights would see the fare 

disclosed with the actual amount of dollars and cents charged for each flight. Vayama

states that no one purchased a ticket on Vayama.com without first being shown the full 

fare, with the amount displayed prominently and with no rounding. In addition, Vayama

states that approximately 70% of its bookings came through partners, where the original 

website displayed the fare rounded up, not down. Vayama estimates that, at most, 30% 

of its bookings were made where the consumer first saw the fare rounded down. Further, 

within 24 hours of receiving notice of the Department’s investigation, Vayama corrected 

the site to display fares rounded up to the nearest dollar amount. Regarding its use of a 

“Taxes and Fees” category on its purchase review screen for Vayama.com, Vayama

promptly provided a link with a full description of the relevant taxes and fees after 

receiving notice from the Department. 

Decision

We view compliance with the Federal aviation statutes and regulations very seriously. 

The Enforcement Office has carefully considered the information provided by Vayama

and continues to believe that enforcement action is warranted. The Enforcement Office 

and Vayama have reached a settlement of this matter in order to avoid litigation. Without 

admitting or denying the violations described above, Vayama consents to the issuance of 

 5 Airtrade International, Inc., charges a service fee of $25.00 for domestic tickets. International tickets 

carry a service fee that can range from $5 to $50.
4

this order to cease and desist from future violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 

399.84, and to the assessment of $80,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties 

otherwise assessable pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301.

This compromise assessment is appropriate considering the nature and extent of the 

violations described herein and serves the public interest. It represents a strong deterrent 

against future noncompliance with the Department’s airfare advertising requirements. 

This order is issued under the authority in 49 CFR Part 1.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. Based on the above information, we approve this settlement and the provisions of this 

order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama, violated 14 CFR 399.84(a) 

by advertising tours including air transportation that failed to state the entire price to 

be paid;

3. We find that by engaging in the conduct described in ordering paragraph 2 above, 

Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama, engaged in unfair and deceptive practices 

and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712; 

4. We find that Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama, engaged in an unfair and 

deceptive practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 

§ 41712 by including in its advertising its own fee in the category labeled “taxes and

fees;”

5. We order Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama, and all other entities owned or 

controlled by, or under common ownership and control with Airtrade International, 

Inc., d/b/a Vayama, its successors, affiliates, and assigns, to cease and desist from 

further similar violations of 14 CFR 399.84(a) and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. Failure 

to comply with this cease and desist provision shall subject Airtrade International, 

Inc., d/b/a Vayama, and their successors and assignees to further enforcement action;

6. Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama is assessed $80,000 in compromise of civil 

penalties that might otherwise be assessed for the violations found in ordering 

paragraphs 2 through 4, above, $40,000 of which shall be due and payable within 

thirty (30) days from the date of issuance of this order. The remaining $40,000 shall 

become due and payable immediately if Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama 

violates the cease-and-desist provision of this order within one year following the 

date of issuance of this order, or fails to comply with the order’s payment provisions; 

and

7. We order Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a Vayama, to pay the penalty assessed in 

paragraph 6 through Pay.gov to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Payments shall be 
5

made in accordance with the instructions contained in the Attachment to this order. 

Failure to pay the penalty as ordered shall subject Airtrade International, Inc., d/b/a 

Vayama to the assessment of interest, penalty, and collection charges under the Debt 

Collection Act and to further enforcement action for failing to comply with this order.

This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service date 

unless a timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own 

motion.

BY:

SAMUEL PODBERESKY

Assistant General Counsel for

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

An electronic version of this document is available at 

www.regulations.gov