This bill outlaws two distinct practices at retail food stores: selling items at a ‘‘grossly excessive’’ price and using consumer surveillance or personal information to set or change prices for individual shoppers. It directs the Federal Trade Commission to write implementing regulations and classifies violations as unfair or deceptive practices enforceable by the FTC, state attorneys general, and private plaintiffs.
The measure matters because it pairs consumer-price protections with privacy limits on in-store data use. If enacted, national grocery operators, shelf-label and surveillance vendors, and loyalty-program managers would confront new compliance rules, possible litigation exposure, and operational constraints on dynamic pricing and personalized promotions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the FTC to define markets and the metrics for what counts as a ‘grossly excessive’ price and treats violations as unfair or deceptive practices under the FTC Act, enabling administrative enforcement and remedies. Separately, it prohibits price adjustments driven by personal information collected through electronic surveillance, including facial recognition, and restricts certain digital shelf-price technologies.
Who It Affects
Large national and regional grocery chains that use in-store sensors, cameras, mobile apps, or electronic shelf labels; vendors of electronic shelf labels and biometric/facial-recognition systems; operators of loyalty and targeted-promotion programs; and consumer privacy and litigation practitioners.
Why It Matters
The bill curtails data-driven, individualized pricing inside physical stores while creating a federal enforcement architecture plus state and private remedies — a combination that could recalibrate how grocery retailers use customer data and how pricing errors or spikes are litigated.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core prohibitions operate in two lanes. First, the bill bars selling or offering an item at a ‘‘grossly excessive’’ price.
Instead of fixing a single formula, the bill instructs the FTC to write guidance and a definitional framework — including what constitutes a market and whether to treat a price that is 120 percent (or another percentage) of recent market averages as ‘‘grossly excessive.’’ Retailers can raise an affirmative defense if they show price increases stem directly from costs beyond their control.
Second, the bill forbids surveillance-based price setting inside retail food stores. That ban covers price adjustments made (directly or indirectly) using personal information gathered through sensors, cameras, or facial recognition, and it explicitly forbids using electronic shelf labels to change prices for particular consumers based on that information.
The statute allows limited exceptions: cost-based price differences, publicly disclosed group discounts (for example age or military discounts) applied uniformly to qualifying consumers, and discounts where personal information is used solely to administer the offer and not for targeting.On biometrics and facial recognition, the bill draws a tight consent framework. A store may use biometric data only when a consumer voluntarily verifies identity and gives a written release after clear written notice about collection, purpose, retention, and any law-enforcement sharing; the store also may not sell or share that biometric data with third parties.
Stores that deploy facial recognition must post clear signage at main entrances explaining the technology and its purpose. The statute excludes ‘‘online entities’’ from the signage and some electronic-shelf-label restrictions but leaves open how hybrid models (apps linked to in-store purchases) will be treated.Enforcement is threefold: the FTC enforces via its unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority and may write regulations; state attorneys general may sue parens patriae seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and either actual damages or a statutory floor per violation; and consumers gain an independent private right of action with remedies that include damages, trebled for willful violations, and recovery of attorney’s fees.
The bill also invalidates pre-dispute arbitration and joint-action waivers for claims under this statute. Finally, it authorizes a limited appropriation for FTC implementation and preserves state laws that offer greater consumer protections.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The FTC must issue implementing regulations and guidance, and the bill gives it discretion to adopt a metric — including considering whether a price >= 120% of a 6‑month market average constitutes a ‘grossly excessive’ price.
Stores larger than 10,000 square feet are barred from using electronic shelf labels or digital shelf-display technology and must show prices with non-digital signage or tags.
Biometric use is permitted only with voluntary, written consumer consent after specified written disclosures about collection, retention, and law‑enforcement sharing, and the statute bans selling or sharing that biometric data with third parties.
A private plaintiff can recover actual damages or $3,000 per violation (whichever is greater), with the court authorized to triple awards for willful or knowing violations; prevailing plaintiffs recover costs and attorney’s fees and have 5 years to sue.
The bill authorizes $5,000,000 (available through Sept. 30, 2032) to carry out the Act and explicitly treats violations as violations of the FTC Act, enabling the Commission to use its full enforcement powers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ban on grossly excessive pricing and FTC rulemaking
This section creates the core price‑gouging offense: selling or offering an item at a grossly excessive price. Rather than setting a statutory formula, it directs the FTC to issue rules and guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act about what counts as a market and what thresholds or metrics define ‘grossly excessive’ and ‘excessive.’ Practically, that means the Commission will translate the statutory standard into workable tests retailers must follow. The section also supplies an affirmative defense when price increases reflect costs outside the retailer’s control, which will shift many disputes onto recordkeeping and supplier‑cost tracing.
Prohibition on surveillance‑based price setting with targeted exceptions
Section 3 forbids adjusting prices for consumers based on their personal information collected via electronic surveillance, and it specifically bars using electronic shelf labels to target prices to individuals. It carves out narrow, administrable exceptions — cost‑based differences, publicly disclosed group discounts applied uniformly, and administration‑only uses of personal information — and establishes a separate consent pathway for biometric identity verification. Compliance will require retailers to audit data flows, reconfigure pricing systems, and document that any individualized offer satisfies the statute’s uniformity and purpose limits.
Facial recognition signage requirement
Retail stores using facial recognition must post clear, conspicuous signage at store entrances explaining the use and intended purpose of the technology. The provision explicitly excludes online entities, so the notice obligation applies to physical locations. The practical effect is notice to consumers and a public record that may feed litigation or enforcement when a store fails to disclose its surveillance practices.
Ban on electronic shelf labels in large stores
Stores over 10,000 square feet cannot use electronic or digital shelf‑label systems and must present prices non‑digitally. The text preserves the ability to offer consumer‑specific discounts where those discounts meet the Section 3(b) conditions. Operationally, the ban forces large-format retailers to choose between rolling back ESL deployments or redesigning loyalty and promotional workflows to avoid per‑shopper automated price changes.
Enforcement: FTC, states, and private rights
The bill folds its prohibitions into the FTC’s unfair or deceptive acts authority, giving the Commission full investigatory and remedial tools and rulemaking power. State attorneys general may sue on behalf of residents and seek injunctive relief, restitution, or statutory/actual damages. Consumers have an independent private right of action with a statute of limitations of five years, recovery of costs and fees, and a trebling provision for willful violations; predating arbitration and class‑waiver clauses are invalid for disputes under this law.
Preemption, funding, and operative definitions
The Act displaces state law only to the extent of direct conflict and preserves state protections that are more protective of consumers. It authorizes a $5 million appropriation to implement the statute and supplies working definitions for key terms — biometric data, electronic shelf label, surveillance technology, personal information, item, and surveillance‑based price setting — which will govern regulatory interpretation and litigation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Privacy across all five countries.
Explore Privacy 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
- Grocery shoppers concerned about sudden price spikes and discriminatory pricing — the bill creates a statutory path to challenge ‘grossly excessive’ prices and targeted price hikes.
- Privacy and consumer‑advocacy groups — the statute restricts in‑store surveillance uses for pricing and requires disclosure and consent safeguards for biometric data.
- State attorneys general and consumer‑protection lawyers — the Act furnishes statutory causes of action and clear remedies to pursue price‑gouging and surveillance violations on behalf of residents.
- Independent and small-format retailers that have not invested heavily in surveillance‑driven personalization — they face fewer competitive disadvantages against large chains leveraging individualized pricing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Large grocery chains and supermarket operators — they must rework pricing systems, remove or retrofit electronic shelf‑label deployments for large stores, document cost bases to assert affirmative defenses, and absorb compliance expenses.
- Vendors of electronic shelf labels, in‑store analytics, and facial‑recognition systems — demand for some product lines could decline, and contracts may need revision to meet data‑handling and consent requirements.
- Loyalty and marketing teams — targeted promotions tied to behavioral profiles will require redesign to meet the statute’s uniformity and administration‑only limits.
- Retail legal and compliance departments — increased litigation exposure from private suits, state enforcement, and ambiguous standards (e.g., ‘grossly excessive’) will drive higher legal spend and monitoring burdens.
- FTC and courts — although the bill authorizes appropriations, the agency and judiciary will absorb significant regulatory, adjudicative, and oversight workload to implement and interpret the new rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting consumers from discriminatory, privacy‑intrusive, or exploitative pricing and preserving retailers’ legitimate need to use data and digital tools for efficient pricing, inventory management, and targeted offers: tighter rules and enforcement reduce privacy and price‑spike harms but also constrain innovation, raise operating costs for large-format retailers, and invite litigation over ambiguous standards.
The bill leaves key determinations to agency rulemaking, but those determinations break open difficult policy and technical questions. ‘Grossly excessive’ is intentionally open‑ended; whether the FTC settles on a simple numeric threshold, a cross‑sectional market test, or a complex cost‑plus comparison will determine how many disputes are litigable and how burdensome compliance documentation becomes. The affirmative defense for uncontrollable cost increases pushes the fact pattern into supplier contracts, invoice trails, and inventory records — areas ripe for disputes about what counts as ‘‘within the retailer’s control.’’
Operationally, the electronic shelf‑label ban for stores over 10,000 square feet is blunt. ESLs do more than display prices; they integrate with inventory, promotions, and checkout.
For large retailers, removing ESLs or redesigning systems to ensure they cannot be used for any consumer‑specific price adjustments imposes integration and labor costs. On privacy, the consent regime for biometric verification is strict on paper but may be practically coercive (consumers needing expedited checkouts may feel compelled to accept); the law’s prohibition on selling or sharing biometric data tightens vendor markets but does not fully address data retention security, secondary uses outside the biometric pathway, or how hybrid online/in‑store ecosystems will be treated.
Finally, the private right of action plus invalidated arbitration waivers increases litigation risk and may spur fee‑generating claims over technical or procedural violations, even where consumer economic harm is small.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.