Idaho
Idaho enforces a kept deposit when a no-show’s loss would be hard to measure and the amount bears a reasonable relation to it. The Idaho Supreme Court restated that test in Schroeder v. Partin, a services case, and put the burden on the party attacking the clause, so a client who calls a deposit a penalty has to prove it. Intent at the outset counts: a deposit written to compensate the shop reasonably for a no-show, not to deter or punish, is the kind Idaho enforces. The Attorney General’s rules add that a condition like this has to be disclosed clearly with the initial offer, the first time the shop offers the booking.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in Idaho?
The law’s word for a set sum agreed in advance is liquidated damages.
No Idaho statute for services was found, so the Idaho Supreme Court’s test governs: a sum set in advance is enforced where accurate damages would be difficult or impossible to determine and the sum bears a reasonable relation to actual damages, and a sum that is arbitrary, bears no reasonable relation to the anticipated damage, and is exorbitant and grossly unfair is a penalty, and void. In Schroeder v. Partin, a contract for services, the Court put the burden on the party asserting the clause is unenforceable and held that a clause intended at the outset to reasonably compensate, rather than to deter or punish, will be enforceable. Labels do not decide it: courts look beyond the words to the clause’s character, and whether a clause is valid is a question of fact, decided on the evidence in each case.
“A liquidated damage provision should be enforced: in any case where the circumstances are such that accurate determination of the damages would be difficult or impossible, and provided that the liquidated damages fixed by the contract bear a reasonable relation to actual damages.” Schroeder v. Partin, 151 Idaho 471 (2011)
Showing your refund policy
No refund-policy disclosure statute was found; the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (Idaho Code §§ 48-601 to 48-619) contains none. What does reach a deposit policy is the Attorney General’s Rule 40, which covers services and wants an offer’s material conditions disclosed clearly with the initial offer.
Body-art rules and money
Idaho has no state body-art rule. Its one state statute on tattooing, Idaho Code § 18-1523, read in full, sets age and parental-consent rules for minors and says nothing about deposits, refunds, prices or payment records. Some cities and counties regulate body art locally; those were not read.
Read: Idaho Code § 18-1523
What reaches your deposit page
A deposit’s conditions disclosed clearly with the initial offer
The Attorney General’s consumer protection rules make it unfair and deceptive to offer goods or services with material conditions unless the conditions are clearly and conspicuously disclosed with the initial offer, the first time the shop offers the booking. A deposit that is not refunded on a missed appointment is such a condition, and under Rule 41 a later disclosure is no defense, even when it comes before the sale is completed. So a shop that wants to meet Rule 40 states that condition when it first offers the booking, such as in the message that offers the appointment, as well as in the policy the client agrees to before paying. A client who loses money to a violation can sue for actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater.
“It is an unfair and deceptive act or practice for a seller to offer goods or services with material contingencies, conditions, or qualifications attendant to the offer unless such contingencies, conditions, or qualifications are clearly and conspicuously disclosed in connection with the initial offer.” Idaho Rules of Consumer Protection, IDAPA 04.02.01, Rules 40 and 41
This page summarizes public law in plain language, with the source each point comes from, read at the source on 2026-09-23. It is not legal advice.