Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by t…
The No Gratuitous Overcharging for Ubiquitous Global Exports (No GOUGE) Act prohibits selling or offering for sale in the U.S. a "tariffed good" at an "unreasonably high price" for five years after a tariff or a planned tariff enters into force or is publicly announced. The bill defines tariffed goods to include final goods subject to tariffs, goods assembled in the U.S. with tariffed components, components subject to tariffs, and goods tied to planned tariffs; baseline prices are set by the 180-day average before the tariff or announcement.
Scope and intrusiveness: progressives see strong consumer-protection value; conservatives see heavy-handed regulatory intrusion.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a defined substantive prohibition against charging unreasonably high prices for goods subject to tariffs, provides detailed definitions and statutory enforcement authorities, creates presumptions and rebuttal standards for tariff-related shock events, and mandates reporting and consumer complaint infrastructure.
The No Gratuitous Overcharging for Ubiquitous Global Exports (No GOUGE) Act prohibits selling or offering for sale in the U.S. a "tariffed good" at an "unreasonably high price" for five years after a tariff or a planned tariff enters into force or is publicly announced.
The bill defines tariffed goods to include final goods subject to tariffs, goods assembled in the U.S. with tariffed components, components subject to tariffs, and goods tied to planned tariffs; baseline prices are set by the 180-day average before the tariff or announcement.
It creates an evidentiary framework including a presumption of violation on certain "tariff-related shock dates" for firms with "unfair leverage" (e.g., $1 billion+ U.S. revenue), allows rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence, exempts firms whose ultimate parent earned less than $100 million, and tasks the FTC with rulemaking and enforcement while preserving state enforcement.
On content alone the bill addresses a salient consumer issue (price increases after tariffs) with administrative mechanisms (FTC enforcement, agency reports) and some moderating features (small-firm exemption, rebuttal standard). Those features improve prospects. But the substantive intrusion into private pricing tied to trade policy, likely strong industry opposition, potential legal challenges over definitions (e.g., "planned tariff"), and the need for bipartisan consensus in the Senate weigh against enactment. The bill is plausible to pass a committee and attract public attention but would face substantial hurdles en route to becoming law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a defined substantive prohibition against charging unreasonably high prices for goods subject to tariffs, provides detailed definitions and statutory enforcement authorities, creates presumptions and rebuttal standards for tariff-related shock events, and mandates reporting and consumer complaint infrastructure. It relies on FTC rulemaking for significant determinations and does not include explicit funding.
Scope and intrusiveness: progressives see strong consumer-protection value; conservatives see heavy-handed regulatory intrusion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and intrusiveness: progressives see strong consumer-protection value; conservatives see heavy-handed regulatory intrusion.
This persona would likely view the bill favorably as a proactive consumer-protection measure to stop corporations from using tariffs as a pretext for price hikes.
They would appreciate the FTC enforcement mechanism, the corporate-size exemptions to avoid burdening small businesses, and the explicit exclusion of executive compensation and buybacks from allowable cost pass-through.
They may still want stronger protections or clearer rules to prevent firms from shifting costs to workers or suppliers (a possible unintended consequence).
A centrist would likely be cautiously supportive in principle of protecting consumers from obvious post-tariff price gouging, but concerned about legal clarity, administrative burden, and economic side effects.
They would welcome the FTC-led, data-driven enforcement structure and the small-business exemption, while urging clearer definitions and sensible thresholds to avoid overreach.
The centrist will weigh the consumer benefits against potential compliance costs and litigation, and favor targeted fixes (e.g., clearer evidentiary rules, narrower presumptions) to make the measure workable and less disruptive to legitimate business responses to supply-cost changes.
This persona would generally oppose the bill as an intrusive, price-controlling regulation that interferes with market pricing and adds regulatory and litigation burdens for businesses.
They would be particularly concerned about vague standards, the low bar for presumptions on shock dates, the broad five-year timeframe, and expansive FTC enforcement plus state-level lawsuits.
While acknowledging the goal of preventing clear opportunistic gouging, they would see this as poorly targeted and likely to harm investment, domestic production adjustments, and competitive market responses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill addresses a salient consumer issue (price increases after tariffs) with administrative mechanisms (FTC enforcement, agency reports) and some moderating features (small-firm exemption, rebuttal standard). Those features improve prospects. But the substantive intrusion into private pricing tied to trade policy, likely strong industry opposition, potential legal challenges over definitions (e.g., "planned tariff"), and the need for bipartisan consensus in the Senate weigh against enactment. The bill is plausible to pass a committee and attract public attention but would face substantial hurdles en route to becoming law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and intrusiveness: progressives see strong consumer-protection value; conservatives see heavy-handed regulatory intrusion.
On content alone the bill addresses a salient consumer issue (price increases after tariffs) with administrative mechanisms (FTC enforcemen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a defined substantive prohibition against charging unreasonably high prices for goods subject to tariffs, provides detailed definitions and statutory enfo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.