Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…
This bill would prohibit retail food stores from charging "grossly excessive" prices, require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to define that term and issue implementing regulations, and create an affirmative defense if price increases are directly attributable to uncontrollable costs. It bans "surveillance-based price setting"—adjusting prices for individual consumers or groups based on personal information (including facial recognition)—while allowing narrow, uniformly offered discounts and voluntary biometric identity verification under strict notice and consent requirements.
Privacy vs. efficiency: liberals emphasize protection from surveillance-based individualized pricing; conservatives emphasize the operational and innovation costs of banning electronic shelf labels and limiting data use.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive prohibitions and integrates well with existing statutory enforcement frameworks, while delegating definitional and metric detail to the Federal Trade Commission and providing limited appropriations to support implementation.
This bill would prohibit retail food stores from charging "grossly excessive" prices, require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to define that term and issue implementing regulations, and create an affirmative defense if price increases are directly attributable to uncontrollable costs.
It bans "surveillance-based price setting"—adjusting prices for individual consumers or groups based on personal information (including facial recognition)—while allowing narrow, uniformly offered discounts and voluntary biometric identity verification under strict notice and consent requirements.
The bill requires clear signage when a store uses facial recognition, forbids the use of electronic shelf labels in stores larger than 10,000 square feet (mandating non-digital price displays), and broadly defines personal information and biometric data.
On substance the bill combines consumer‑friendly objectives (limiting price gouging, protecting privacy) with strong regulatory interventions (bans on electronic shelf labels for large stores, broad private causes of action, statutory damages and trebling). Those features make passage harder: the compliance and litigation exposure will attract well‑organized opposition from retailers and technology vendors, and the bill delegates significant definitional work to the FTC rather than resolving thresholds in statute. While the modest appropriation and targeted sector focus temper fiscal objections, the litigation risk and technology bans reduce the bill's appeal as a compromise measure, lowering its chance of becoming law absent substantial negotiation and narrowing.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive prohibitions and integrates well with existing statutory enforcement frameworks, while delegating definitional and metric detail to the Federal Trade Commission and providing limited appropriations to support implementation.
Privacy vs. efficiency: liberals emphasize protection from surveillance-based individualized pricing; conservatives emphasize the operational and innovation costs of banning electronic shelf labels and limiting data use.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy vs. efficiency: liberals emphasize protection from surveillance-based individualized pricing; conservatives emphasize the operational and innovation costs of banning electronic shelf labels and limiting data use.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill favorably as a consumer-protection and privacy measure that curbs exploitative pricing and discriminatory, surveillance-driven marketing.
They would appreciate limits on individualized price discrimination, mandatory notice for facial recognition, and strong private enforcement tools that empower consumers and states.
Concerns might remain about whether the FTC’s forthcoming definitions are sufficiently protective (for example, the threshold level for "grossly excessive" prices) and whether the law does enough to address corporate data brokerage practices beyond sale of biometric data.
A moderate would see clear consumer and privacy goals in the bill but would be cautious about vagueness, enforcement mechanics, and economic consequences.
They would welcome limits on exploitative pricing and surveillance-based individualized pricing, but worry the FTC’s broad discretion to define "grossly excessive" prices, the private damages floor and treble damages could create litigation exposure and uncertainty for businesses.
The prohibition on electronic shelf labels for larger stores may appear heavy-handed relative to consumer benefits and could impose operational costs.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose the bill as an unnecessary expansion of federal authority that interferes with market pricing, imposes compliance burdens on retailers, and chills technological innovation in retail operations.
They would be particularly concerned about the FTC's broad delegated authority to define "grossly excessive" prices, the ban on electronic shelf labels for large stores, and the creation of a broad private right of action with statutory damages and barriers to arbitration.
They would view these provisions as risk to business flexibility, increased litigation, and federal overreach into state commercial regulation and competition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On substance the bill combines consumer‑friendly objectives (limiting price gouging, protecting privacy) with strong regulatory interventions (bans on electronic shelf labels for large stores, broad private causes of action, statutory damages and trebling). Those features make passage harder: the compliance and litigation exposure will attract well‑organized opposition from retailers and technology vendors, and the bill delegates significant definitional work to the FTC rather than resolving thresholds in statute. While the modest appropriation and targeted sector focus temper fiscal objections, the litigation risk and technology bans reduce the bill's appeal as a compromise measure, lowering its chance of becoming law absent substantial negotiation and narrowing.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy vs. efficiency: liberals emphasize protection from surveillance-based individualized pricing; conservatives emphasize the operation…
On substance the bill combines consumer‑friendly objectives (limiting price gouging, protecting privacy) with strong regulatory interventio…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes clear substantive prohibitions and integrates well with existing statutory enforcement frameworks, while delegating definitional and metric detail to the…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.