AB 2085 revises Section 13300 of the California Business and Professions Code, the statute that governs how point‑of‑sale (POS) systems must display prices to consumers. The changes are framed in the bill as nonsubstantive edits to the existing statutory language that requires conspicuous on-screen price displays, visible discounting information, and disclosure of surcharges and the total transaction amount before payment.
For retail operators and POS vendors the practical obligations remain: make the price (and any discount or surcharge) clearly visible to the consumer at the moment the system interprets the price, and ensure the customer‑facing indicator is positioned and sized to be easily viewable from a normal customer position. The bill also revises the statutory definition of “point‑of‑sale system” to explicitly name computers and common scanning/price‑lookup technologies, which has implications for software vendors and legacy hardware support.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2085 amends §13300 to restate and tidy the rule that a POS must conspicuously display the price when it is ‘‘interpreted’’ by the system, require either the discounted price or the regular price plus a displayed saving when a discount is advertised, and require surcharges and the total transaction amount to be shown at least once before payment. It also rewrites the definition of "point‑of‑sale system" to explicitly include computers, UPC scanners, price lookup codes, and electronic price lookup systems.
Who It Affects
Retail operators that use electronic POS hardware and software, POS vendors and integrators that supply customer‑facing displays or UI, and local county weights‑and‑measures offices that enforce price‑display rules. It also touches on manufacturers of scanning and price‑lookup equipment.
Why It Matters
Even characterized as nonsubstantive, the text edits can change how regulators and courts interpret compliance obligations — particularly around what counts as a POS and what it means for a display to be 'conspicuous' or 'viewable from a typical customer position.' That creates potential operational work for POS vendors and retailers to confirm their displays and workflows meet the clarified statutory language.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 13300 requires that when a retail business uses a point‑of‑sale system to sell goods or services, the price the consumer will pay must be shown to the consumer at the moment the system determines the price. Practically, that means the customer‑facing part of whatever hardware or software is reading barcodes, price‑lookup codes, or otherwise calculating the price must present the price so a typical customer can see it.
The statute repeats that if the store advertises a price reduction, the checkout indicator must show either the discounted price or the regular price together with a displayed credit or reduction that communicates the advertised savings.
The statute also requires that any surcharges plus the total amount to be charged for the entire transaction appear for the consumer at least once before the consumer is required to pay. The bill preserves the long‑standing layout requirement that the customer indicator be positioned and sized so information is easily viewable from a typical customer position at each checkout location.
Those are operational standards that affect POS UI layout, font size, display placement, and timing of when totals and fees appear.AB 2085 rewrites the statutory definition of “point‑of‑sale system” to enumerate common technologies — calling out computers and electronic systems, UPC scanners, price lookup codes, and electronic price lookup systems as means for determining item prices. That wording makes clear the statute contemplates modern electronic systems, not only mechanical registers.
Finally, the statute retains a clause stating that systems used on or after January 1, 2007 must comply with subdivision (a), effectively maintaining an existing compliance baseline rather than creating a new compliance deadline.Taken together, the changes are primarily textual clarifications and examples of covered technologies. The bill does not add new categories of required disclosures beyond what §13300 already demands, nor does it add new penalties or enforcement mechanisms within the text; enforcement continues to rely on the existing weights‑and‑measures framework in California.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Business and Professions Code §13300 but leaves the core obligation intact: the POS must conspicuously display the price at the moment the system interprets it.
When a price reduction or discount is advertised, the checkout customer indicator must show either the discounted price or the regular price plus a displayed credit/reduction representing the savings.
Any surcharges and the total amount for the entire transaction must be shown to the consumer at least once before the customer is required to pay.
The statutory definition of “point‑of‑sale system” is expanded in the text to explicitly include computers and electronic systems, Universal Product Code (UPC) scanners, price lookup codes, and electronic price lookup systems.
The statute keeps an existing compliance reference that all POS systems used on or after January 1, 2007 must meet the subdivision (a) display requirements, i.e.
it preserves the preexisting compliance baseline rather than creating a new compliance date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Customer display requirements at time price is determined
This subsection sets the operational standard: the operator must ensure the price the consumer will pay is conspicuously displayed when the POS ‘‘interprets’’ the price. It specifies how advertised discounts must appear (discounted price or regular price plus an explicit credit), and requires surcharges and the transaction total to be displayed at least once before payment. For implementers, this governs POS UI timing (when the display updates), layout (what elements appear on the customer indicator), and placement/legibility (viewability from a typical customer position).
Definition of point‑of‑sale system
This subsection restates and broadens the definition to cover any computer or electronic system used by a retail establishment, and explicitly lists common technologies — UPC scanners, price lookup codes, and electronic price lookup systems — as examples. The practical effect is to make clear that modern POS software and integrated scanning hardware fall within the statute, which matters for software vendors and retailers who might otherwise argue legacy equipment or nontraditional interfaces are out of scope.
Existing compliance baseline preserved
This short clause retains a directive that all POS systems used on or after January 1, 2007 must comply with subsection (a). That preserves the existing statutory baseline rather than creating a new implementation timeline; it signals the amendments are textual and not intended to impose a fresh compliance deadline.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Economy across all five countries.
Explore Economy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers seeking price transparency — clearer statutory language and enumerated examples reduce fuzziness about when and where prices and discounts must appear, which can reduce surprise charges at checkout.
- Compliance‑oriented retailers — businesses that already present prices and totals on customer displays gain clearer statutory footing to push back against complaints based on ambiguous interpretation of older language.
- POS software and hardware vendors that proactively support customer‑facing displays — vendors who supply clearly visible, configurable customer indicators can market compliance as a feature and capture upgrade revenue.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small retailers with legacy POS hardware — shops that use older customer displays or fixed registers may need software or hardware updates, or changes to checkout layout and training, to ensure 'conspicuous' presentation and timing of totals and surcharges.
- POS vendors and integrators — firms may need to update UI templates, documentation, and default workflows to ensure their systems meet the enumerated examples and the conspicuity/placement standards.
- Local county weights‑and‑measures offices — while the bill does not create new enforcement powers, ambiguous language can increase consumer complaints and inspection workload, potentially stretching already limited local enforcement resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill wrestles with a classic regulatory trade‑off: tighten consumer protections by insisting on clear, visible pricing at the moment a POS determines price, versus the cost and uncertainty imposed on retailers and POS vendors by imprecise statutory language and the technical realities of diverse checkout systems. Protecting consumers from surprise totals is straightforward in principle but costly and ambiguous in execution when the statute leaves key terms undefined.
Although the bill is described as making nonsubstantive edits, the revisions still carry interpretive weight. Key terms remain subjective: ‘‘conspicuously displayed,’’ ‘‘interpreted by the system,’’ and ‘‘typical and reasonable customer position’’ are operationally flexible and will require local guidance or case‑by‑case enforcement decisions.
The expanded definition that names computers and specific scanning/lookup technologies clarifies coverage, but its clumsy phrasing (for example, duplicated words and a broad catchall) could create new ambiguity about edge cases such as mobile POS apps, customer‑side smartphone interfaces, or cloud‑based price calculation services.
The statute is silent on several practical issues that retailers and vendors will want resolved: whether the required display must be visible on receipts or in-app screens, how the rule applies to self‑checkout kiosks or pay‑at‑table systems, whether dynamically applied fees (payment processing surcharges, service fees, taxes collected on behalf of governments) qualify as ‘‘surcharges’’ for disclosure purposes, and how to reconcile conspicuous on‑screen displays with space‑limited hardware or multi‑language needs. Because the bill does not add enforcement procedures or penalties, any disputes will continue to be handled under existing weights‑and‑measures enforcement frameworks — which can produce uneven outcomes across counties.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.