PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 13, 2013
Cruise Vessel Consumer Confidence Act of 2013 - Amends federal shipping law to authorize the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to investigate, on its own initiative or upon receiving a complaint, whether the sale of a ticket to a cruise vessel passenger by a cruise vessel owner is: (1) an unfair or deceptive practice, or (2) an unfair method of competition.
Requires the FMC, in cases of an affirmative determination, to order the owner to cease such sales. Authorizes the FMC to impose a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for owners who violate such orders.
Makes it an unfair or deceptive practice for an owner that fails to make certain written disclosures before offering to sell a ticket to a passenger.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes it an unfair or deceptive practice for an owner offering to sell a ticket to a passenger via the Internet (electronic ticket) to require that the ticket purchaser provide a printed version of that ticket if the purchaser is able to provide appropriate identification at the time of travel.
Directs the FMC to establish a process to ensure that a passenger with a ticket for a vessel whose initial departure or final disembarkment is delayed for more than 24 hours is reimbursed by the owner in an amount that is equal to: (1) the lesser of half the ticket price or $500, if the delay is between 24 and 48 hours; or (2) the full price of the ticket, if the delay is 48 hours or more.
Requires a cruise vessel owner to: (1) submit a customer service plan to the FMC, (2) incorporate it into the ticket contract of that owner, and (3) make both of them easily available on the owner's website.
Directs the FMC to establish a process for passengers to report complaints to the FMC.
Authorizes the FMC to establish, adjust, and collect fees in ticket prices to fund implementation of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-3] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3475 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3475 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3475 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3475 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.