The Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025 makes it unlawful to sell or offer any good or service at a "grossly excessive" price and creates a presumption of violation when price increases occur during an "exceptional market shock." The bill sets revenue-based thresholds to define who has "unfair leverage," establishes affirmative defenses for smaller sellers, and directs the Federal Trade Commission to issue implementing rules and to enforce the statute with injunctions, equitable relief, and civil penalties tied to the ultimate parent entity’s revenues.
The bill also requires public companies to include granular, tabular disclosures in Form 10‑Q/10‑K filings for the quarter following an exceptional market shock—showing changes in volume, prices, margins, and a narrative on pricing strategy—and appropriates $1 billion to the FTC for enforcement through FY2033. The measure creates a permanent federal framework that overlays existing state laws and could meaningfully alter pricing behavior, compliance burdens, and litigation exposure for large sellers and public issuers during and after market disruptions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill outlaws selling at a "grossly excessive" price and creates a presumption of violation for price increases during an "exceptional market shock" unless the seller can show cost-driven justification. It defines "unfair leverage" with revenue and market-share tests, gives the FTC independent authority to seek injunctions, damages, and penalties (up to 5% of ultimate parent revenues), and directs the SEC to require post‑shock pricing disclosures from public issuers.
Who It Affects
Large sellers and platforms meeting the bill’s revenue or market‑share thresholds (e.g., $1 billion-plus revenue tests and 40% seller/30% buyer market share presumptions), public companies that must file Form 10‑Q/10‑K after a shock, state attorneys general who retain parallel enforcement authority, and consumers in disrupted markets.
Why It Matters
This is the first federal statutory price‑gouging regime that ties presumptions to objective pre‑shock prices and competitor pricing, links penalties to parent‑company revenue, and forces disclosure of pricing strategy—raising compliance, litigation, and competitive‑disclosure issues that go beyond existing state laws and ordinary antitrust tools.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act creates a single federal prohibition on selling goods or services at a "grossly excessive" price. That phrase is left for the Federal Trade Commission to define, but the statute builds detailed mechanics around how violations will be proved: during an "exceptional market shock"—a category that lists disasters, declared emergencies, public‑health crises, trade disruptions, and other atypical market disruptions—a seller is presumed to have violated the law if it both has "unfair leverage" or is using the shock as a pretext and is charging an excessive price compared either to its own 120‑day pre‑shock average prices or to competitor prices during the shock.
Not every seller is equally exposed. The bill creates an affirmative defense for sellers whose ultimate parent earned under $100 million in U.S. revenue in the prior 12 months; those sellers must show by a preponderance of the evidence that any price increase is directly due to additional costs beyond their control.
For sellers subject to the presumption, the statute permits rebuttal—but raises the bar: a seller must offer clear and convincing evidence that higher prices were driven by uncontrollable cost increases. The Act also defines "unfair leverage" with several routes to characterization, including a $1 billion revenue threshold (adjusted for inflation), discriminatory contracting practices, being a declared "critical trading partner," or having a dominant market position (with a rebuttable presumption at 40% seller share or 30% buyer share).Enforcement authority is broad.
The FTC may treat violations as unfair or deceptive practices, promulgate rules (with required guidance within 180 days after enactment), and bring civil actions for injunctions, restitution, damages, and civil penalties. Penalties differ by leverage: entities without unfair leverage face the lesser of $25,000 or 5% of ultimate parent revenues; entities with unfair leverage face 5% of ultimate parent revenues.
States keep their enforcement rights; state attorneys general may sue in federal or state court but must notify the FTC and face limitations while a federal action is pending. Finally, the bill mandates that public companies file detailed, tabular disclosures in the first periodic filing after a covered quarter, explaining quantity and price changes, margin movements by product category, cost versus volume contribution to revenue changes, and a narrative on pricing strategy, and it provides a $1 billion appropriation to the FTC for enforcement through FY2033.
The Five Things You Need to Know
During an "exceptional market shock," a seller is presumed to have violated the statute if it has "unfair leverage" or is using the shock as a pretext and charges prices excessive to its 120‑day pre‑shock average or to competitor prices during the shock.
The statute defines "unfair leverage" by multiple paths—one is financial: an entity that earned at least $1 billion in U.S. revenue in the prior 12 months (adjusted annually for inflation) can be characterized as having unfair leverage.
A seller with an ultimate parent entity that earned less than $100 million in U.S. revenue in the prior 12 months gets an affirmative defense if it proves by a preponderance that price increases reflect uncontrollable additional costs; that $100 million threshold is inflation‑adjusted beginning in 2026.
Civil penalties are scaled to parent‑company revenue: sellers with unfair leverage face civil penalties equal to 5% of the ultimate parent’s prior 12‑month revenues; sellers without unfair leverage face the lesser of $25,000 or 5% of the ultimate parent’s prior 12‑month revenues.
Covered public issuers must include in the Form 10‑Q/10‑K following a covered quarter tabular breakdowns of price, volume, margin and cost changes by material product category plus a detailed narrative explaining pricing strategy and future pricing plans; the SEC must issue rules within 180 days.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Key statutory terms and scope
The Act defines "exceptional market shock" broadly (natural disasters, power failures, labor action, declared emergencies, abrupt trade shifts, public‑health emergencies, and other atypical disruptions) and expands the definition of "State" to include tribes. Two operationally significant terms are "critical trading partner"—a firm that can restrict access to inputs, customers, or platforms in ways that harm competition—and "ultimate parent entity," which ties penalty math and revenue thresholds to consolidated parent revenue. These definitions steer enforcement and will be central to FTC rulemaking and litigation over market definition and party identity.
How violations are proved and when defendants can avoid liability
The core prohibition is simple: selling at a "grossly excessive price" is unlawful. The statute then layers evidentiary devices: during a shock, the court presumes a violation when unfair leverage or pretext is shown and the price exceeds internal 120‑day averages or competitor pricing. Sellers under the $100 million parent revenue cap have an affirmative defense but must show by a preponderance that price increases flow from uncontrollable cost increases; sellers facing the presumption must overturn it with clear and convincing evidence. These shifting burdens and standards—the statute’s unusual use of both preponderance and clear‑and‑convincing standards—will shape early litigation strategy and discovery demands.
Who counts as powerful, and what enforcement looks like
The bill lists multiple indicia of "unfair leverage," including a $1 billion revenue test (inflation‑adjusted), discriminatory treatment of trading partners, being a critical trading partner, engaging in unfair practices, or showing a dominant market position (with market‑share presumptions of 40% seller/30% buyer). The FTC gains independent district‑court litigation authority to obtain injunctions, restitution, damages, and equitable relief, plus explicit civil penalties: 5% of ultimate parent revenue for entities with unfair leverage, and the lesser of $25,000 or 5% of ultimate parent revenue for others. The Commission must issue regulations and specific guidance within 180 days on core terms like "market" and "grossly excessive price," but it retains discretion over the metric used (the bill suggests but does not mandate a 120% of the 6‑month average bright line).
Parallel state authority with coordination rules
State attorneys general retain broad civil enforcement authority, including injunctive relief, penalties, and restitution on behalf of state residents. They must notify the FTC before suing (or immediately after if notice would be infeasible), the FTC may intervene, and while the FTC has an action pending it can limit duplicative state filings against named defendants without FTC approval. The provision preserves concurrent state remedies and creates a framework for federal‑state coordination, which will affect timing and forum choice in multi‑state cases.
Mandatory post‑shock disclosures for public issuers
Public companies that experience a covered quarter must include, in the next Form 10‑Q or 10‑K, tabular data on percentage changes in sales volume and average price, gross margins by material product category, the revenue share attributable to cost versus volume changes, cost change breakdowns, dollar changes in costs and revenues, plus a detailed narrative explaining pricing decisions, margin increases, and plans to modify pricing. The SEC must issue implementing regulations within 180 days. These disclosure requirements can force competitive information into public filings and create compliance, lawyer‑review, and disclosure‑risk processes for issuers.
Dedicated appropriation for FTC enforcement
The bill appropriates $1,000,000,000 to the FTC for fiscal year 2025, available through September 30, 2033, specifically for carrying out Commission work. That is a significant, multi‑year infusion intended to fund rulemaking, investigations, and litigation arising from the statute, and it signals Congress’s intent that enforcement be active rather than symbolic.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance 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 in disrupted markets — The presumption against excessive pricing during exceptional shocks is designed to lower the frequency and scale of opportunistic price spikes for essentials.
- State attorneys general and consumer protection advocates — They gain a federal backstop and coordinated enforcement pathways, and can pursue damages and restitution alongside the FTC.
- Smaller sellers under the $100 million parent threshold — The affirmative defense shields many small businesses from enforcement for cost‑driven price increases, reducing compliance risk for genuinely cost‑constrained firms.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large sellers and platforms meeting the bill’s revenue or market‑share thresholds — They face heightened compliance, monitoring, documentation, and potential penalties (5% of ultimate parent revenue) and litigation exposure during shocks.
- Public issuers — The new SEC filing requirements impose ongoing disclosure, legal review, and potential competitive harm from publicly reporting granular pricing strategy and margin drivers.
- FTC and state enforcement apparatuses — Although the bill funds the FTC, both federal and state agencies will incur investigation, litigation, and coordination costs; states may face resource pressure when litigating complex multi‑defendant cases.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is straightforward but sharp: the bill aims to prevent opportunistic, exploitative price spikes that harm consumers during emergencies, yet it must avoid chilling legitimate price increases that reflect real cost changes or are necessary to maintain supply. That trade‑off forces agencies to choose between aggressive bright‑line enforcement that reduces consumer risk but risks supply dislocation and over‑deterrence, or narrow, fact‑intensive enforcement that protects legitimate cost recovery but may leave consumers exposed to opportunistic pricing.
The bill leaves key definitional choices to agency rulemaking, which creates immediate uncertainty. "Grossly excessive" is undefined in statute and the Commission may adopt any metric; the draft language signals a potential 120%‑of‑recent‑average benchmark but does not require it. That discretion is practical—markets differ—but it makes compliance planning hard for firms and invites early litigation over rule validity and methodology.
The evidentiary regime creates another implementation difficulty: the statute uses a preponderance standard for initial presumptions but requires clear and convincing evidence for rebuttal, shifting litigation incentives and likely increasing discovery and expert work to defeat presumptions.
Mandated SEC disclosures trade enforcement transparency for competitive risk: firms must disclose detailed margin and pricing rationales that competitors and suppliers could use. Those disclosure obligations may chill aggressive cost‑pass‑through even when economically justified and could subject firms to investor litigation if narratives are viewed as misleading.
The use of consolidated "ultimate parent" revenue for penalties and thresholds may produce outsized penalties for specific product lines or subsidiaries whose conduct affects a small slice of consolidated sales. Finally, the broad "critical trading partner" concept and market‑share presumptions (40% seller, 30% buyer) will be fought in litigation over market definition, and the 180‑day rulemaking deadlines set a tight calendar for agencies to resolve complex questions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.