Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill amends the Defense Production Act to strengthen prohibitions on hoarding and price gouging for "materials or critical goods" during declared scarcities or acute shortages. It defines an "unfairly excessive price" as a gross disparity from the pre-designation or pre-shortage price and creates a presumptive gross disparity of a 10 percent price increase.
Appropriate threshold and measurement: liberals accept the 10% presumptive threshold as protective; centrists find it arbitrary and want evidence-based calibration; conservatives see it as market interference.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides substantive statutory changes to the Defense Production Act by defining price gouging, setting a presumptive 10% threshold for 'gross disparity,' enumerating covered 'critical goods' and 'acute shortages,' and imposing a specified criminal penalty (greater of $20,000 or 300% of revenue from the violation).
This bill amends the Defense Production Act to strengthen prohibitions on hoarding and price gouging for "materials or critical goods" during declared scarcities or acute shortages.
It defines an "unfairly excessive price" as a gross disparity from the pre-designation or pre-shortage price and creates a presumptive gross disparity of a 10 percent price increase.
The bill provides exceptions where price increases result from legitimate business needs or additional costs outside the seller's control.
Content alone suggests moderate public appeal (consumer protection during shortages) but significant obstacles: wide scope, aggressive penalty scheme, strengthened federal authority, and limited compromise measures. Those features typically provoke substantial legislative amendment, stakeholder opposition, or narrowing before final enactment—reducing the standalone chance of becoming law absent major revisions or inclusion in a larger package that addresses implementation and business concerns.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides substantive statutory changes to the Defense Production Act by defining price gouging, setting a presumptive 10% threshold for 'gross disparity,' enumerating covered 'critical goods' and 'acute shortages,' and imposing a specified criminal penalty (greater of $20,000 or 300% of revenue from the violation).
Appropriate threshold and measurement: liberals accept the 10% presumptive threshold as protective; centrists find it arbitrary and want evidence-based calibration; conservatives see it as market interference.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Appropriate threshold and measurement: liberals accept the 10% presumptive threshold as protective; centrists find it arbitrary and want evidence-based calibration; conservatives see it as market interference.
A liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view this bill positively as a stronger federal tool to prevent exploitation of consumers and critical supply shortages during crises.
They would see the 10 percent presumptive threshold and the expanded definition of critical goods as useful protections for households, patients, and communities.
They would also welcome the stiff penalty (up to triple illegal revenue) as a deterrent against bad actors.
A centrist/moderate would generally support the goal of preventing exploitative price spikes in emergencies but would be cautious about blunt regulatory tools that could produce unintended consequences.
They would see benefits in clearer federal standards and deterrent penalties, while worrying about market distortions, the 10 percent presumptive standard's arbitrariness, and the large punitive multiplier.
They would favor tweaks to improve clarity, preserve legitimate supply incentives, and ensure the rule is administrable and evidence-based.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose the bill as an expansion of government control over prices that risks discouraging suppliers and interfering with market signals during crises.
They would be concerned that broad definitions (e.g., any consumer food item) and a low 10 percent presumptive threshold create uncertainty and litigation risk for legitimate businesses.
The substantial penalty (300% of revenue) would be seen as punitive and likely to chill commerce.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content alone suggests moderate public appeal (consumer protection during shortages) but significant obstacles: wide scope, aggressive penalty scheme, strengthened federal authority, and limited compromise measures. Those features typically provoke substantial legislative amendment, stakeholder opposition, or narrowing before final enactment—reducing the standalone chance of becoming law absent major revisions or inclusion in a larger package that addresses implementation and business concerns.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Appropriate threshold and measurement: liberals accept the 10% presumptive threshold as protective; centrists find it arbitrary and want ev…
Content alone suggests moderate public appeal (consumer protection during shortages) but significant obstacles: wide scope, aggressive pena…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides substantive statutory changes to the Defense Production Act by defining price gouging, setting a presumptive 10% threshold for 'gross disparity,' enumerating…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.