Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill (Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025) makes it unlawful to sell or offer for sale a "grossly excessive" price for any good or service, establishes presumptions and standards that apply during "exceptional market shocks," and defines factors the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may use to determine "unfair leverage." It creates affirmative defenses for certain sellers (including firms whose ultimate parent earned under $100 million in the prior 12 months and sellers who can show price increases were due to uncontrollable cost increases), sets evidentiary standards for presumptions and rebuttals, and authorizes civil enforcement by the FTC and State attorneys general with specified interplay rules. The Act directs the FTC to promulgate implementing rules and definitions (including a potential 120% pricing benchmark) and expands the FTC's ability to seek injunctions, damages, restitution, and civil penalties (up to 5 percent of ultimate parent entity revenues for some violations).
Scope and role of federal enforcement: liberals favor robust FTC action and funding; conservatives see overreach and regulatory expansion.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-structured substantive policy statute that establishes a new federal prohibition, specifies enforcement regimes and penalties, provides for state participation, requires related corporate disclosures, and funds the principal enforcement agency.
This bill (Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025) makes it unlawful to sell or offer for sale a "grossly excessive" price for any good or service, establishes presumptions and standards that apply during "exceptional market shocks," and defines factors the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may use to determine "unfair leverage." It creates affirmative defenses for certain sellers (including firms whose ultimate parent earned under $100 million in the prior 12 months and sellers who can show price increases were due to uncontrollable cost increases), sets evidentiary standards for presumptions and rebuttals, and authorizes civil enforcement by the FTC and State attorneys general with specified interplay rules.
The Act directs the FTC to promulgate implementing rules and definitions (including a potential 120% pricing benchmark) and expands the FTC's ability to seek injunctions, damages, restitution, and civil penalties (up to 5 percent of ultimate parent entity revenues for some violations).
It requires public companies to include detailed pricing, margin, and pricing-strategy disclosures in SEC filings after quarters with an exceptional market shock, and appropriates $1 billion to the FTC for fiscal year 2025 through 2033 to carry out the law.
On content alone, the bill faces an uphill path: it is a broad law-change that expands agency power, adds major new corporate reporting obligations, creates revenue-tied penalties, and requests a large appropriation. While the consumer-protection goal is politically salable and some provisions (small-firm carve-out, state enforcement role) reduce friction, the substantial regulatory footprint, likely organized industry opposition, and legal and definitional uncertainties reduce the bill’s prospects absent significant amendment or compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-structured substantive policy statute that establishes a new federal prohibition, specifies enforcement regimes and penalties, provides for state participation, requires related corporate disclosures, and funds the principal enforcement agency. It balances statutory prescription with delegated agency rulemaking for technical metrics.
Scope and role of federal enforcement: liberals favor robust FTC action and funding; conservatives see overreach and regulatory expansion.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and role of federal enforcement: liberals favor robust FTC action and funding; conservatives see overreach and regulatory expansion.
A mainstream liberal is likely to view this bill favorably as a tool to protect consumers from exploitative price spikes during emergencies and to hold large firms accountable.
They would emphasize the expanded FTC enforcement powers, the presumptions against firms with "unfair leverage," the affirmative defense preserving protections for small businesses, and the SEC disclosure requirements as increasing corporate transparency.
They may press for robust rulemaking and sufficient enforcement funding to ensure the law is effective.
A typical centrist would find the bill reasonable in its consumer-protection goal but be cautious about vagueness, compliance costs, and unintended market distortions.
They would appreciate the affirmative defense for smaller sellers and the role for both federal and state enforcement, but worry that key terms ("grossly excessive," "market," "exceptional market shock") are left to agency rulemaking, which could create regulatory uncertainty.
They would likely support the bill if rulemaking is clear, if penalties are proportionate and transparent, and if the SEC disclosure requirements are calibrated to avoid disclosure of competitively sensitive proprietary information.
A mainstream conservative is likely to view the bill skeptically as an expansion of federal regulatory authority over pricing that could interfere with market signals and seller responsiveness during crises.
They would object to vague standards ("grossly excessive," "unfair leverage," market definitions), the significant FTC enforcement powers and $1 billion appropriation, and the SEC disclosure requirements forcing companies to publicly justify pricing strategies.
They would argue the bill risks chilling supply responses, imposing heavy compliance costs, and creating litigation risk for businesses.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill faces an uphill path: it is a broad law-change that expands agency power, adds major new corporate reporting obligations, creates revenue-tied penalties, and requests a large appropriation. While the consumer-protection goal is politically salable and some provisions (small-firm carve-out, state enforcement role) reduce friction, the substantial regulatory footprint, likely organized industry opposition, and legal and definitional uncertainties reduce the bill’s prospects absent significant amendment or compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and role of federal enforcement: liberals favor robust FTC action and funding; conservatives see overreach and regulatory expansion.
On content alone, the bill faces an uphill path: it is a broad law-change that expands agency power, adds major new corporate reporting obl…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-structured substantive policy statute that establishes a new federal prohibition, specifies enforcement regimes and penalties, provides for state participat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.