NY Moves To Ban ‘Surveillance Pricing’

NEW YORK, NY— Attorney General Letitia James is pushing new legislation to ban “surveillance pricing” in New York, targeting a practice that tailors prices to consumers based on personal data.

Speaking alongside lawmakers and advocates in Albany, James backed a package of two bills aimed at eliminating the use of algorithm-driven pricing, which companies use to adjust costs for individuals shopping online or in stores.

“Too often, this means we’re paying more for the basics that we need to get by,” James said. “This is not innovation, this is exploitation.”

The proposals include the One Fair Price Act and the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act.

The first, sponsored by Rachel May and Emérita Torres, would prohibit surveillance pricing in online and app-based transactions.

May said that such systems could allow companies to determine “the maximum price someone would pay for that item,” undermining transparency.

“This throws the whole concept of fair pricing and a fair economy out the window," she said.

The second proposal, backed by Mike Gianaris and Michaelle Solages, would ban the use of electronic shelf labels and algorithmic pricing in grocery stores and supermarkets.

Solages said the measures respond to rapid changes in how companies collect and use consumer data.

“New Yorkers are already doing everything they can to make ends meet," Solages said. "The last thing they should have to worry about is whether the price they see on the shelf is actually the price they will pay."

Solages told Patch that the One Fair Price package puts an end to the corporate practice of using algorithms and digital price tags.

"One store. One product. One fair price," she said. "That is what New Yorkers deserve, and that is exactly what we are fighting for.”

The legislation would go beyond a law signed last year by Kathy Hochul, which requires companies to disclose when they use algorithmic pricing. That measure marked the first law of its kind in the nation.

Similar efforts remain limited elsewhere.

California has taken steps to address the issue, with its attorney general launching investigations under the California Consumer Privacy Act earlier this year.

Hochul has not publicly weighed in on the new proposals.

Past negotiations, however, suggest potential friction over enforcement provisions.

The bills would allow both the attorney general and private individuals to bring lawsuits against companies that violate the law.

Previous measures have narrowed similar provisions.

When Hochul signed the FAIR Business Practices Act, she approved a chapter amendment limiting when individuals could sue. Lawmakers also removed a private right of action from the SAFE for Kids Act before final passage.

“Obviously, a private right of action is critical to all consumers,” James said, while noting that lawmakers would ultimately shape the legislation. “But clearly, the Office of the Attorney General will file proceedings to protect the interests of consumers.”