A growing number of states are moving to regulate surveillance pricing — the practice of using personal data to charge different consumers different prices in real time. As of April 2026, more than 40 bills have been introduced across at least 24 states, with two laws already enacted. New York was the first state to act. Maryland followed with a broader prohibition. And California, Illinois, Vermont, Connecticut, and others have bills pending.
This guide covers every enacted law and major pending bill, explains the two competing regulatory frameworks, and provides a compliance checklist for retailers and e-commerce operators.
1. Why Surveillance Pricing Matters
Surveillance pricing has drawn attention from regulators and researchers for years. In January 2024, the Federal Trade Commission opened a formal inquiry into the practice, sending orders to eight companies — including Amazon, Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase, and Revionics — seeking information about their pricing algorithms and the consumer data they rely on. The FTC cited concerns that personalized pricing based on location, browsing behavior, device type, and demographic data could harm consumers who pay more simply because an algorithm predicts they will.
Academic research has reinforced these concerns. A 2023 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that consumers who exhibited less price-sensitive browsing behavior were shown higher prices on identical products. A separate 2024 analysis of airline pricing found statistically significant price disparities correlated with neighborhood income levels. The combination of regulatory attention and documented consumer harm has accelerated legislative activity at the state level.
2. New York: The First Enacted State Law
New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (S 3008), signed into law in 2025 and effective July 8, 2025, was the first state law directly addressing surveillance pricing. The law takes a disclosure-first approach: merchants must notify consumers before purchase when the price they are seeing was set using personal information.
What It Requires
- Clear and conspicuous disclosure at the point of purchase when price is determined using personal data
- Disclosure must identify the categories of personal data used (e.g., location, browsing history, purchase history)
- Civil penalty provisions for non-compliance enforced by the New York Attorney General
The law covers online and in-app transactions but does not require merchants to stop using personalized pricing — only to disclose it. This distinguishes New York's approach from the prohibition models adopted or proposed in other states.
Source: NY Senate S 3008
3. Maryland: Protection from Predatory Pricing Act
Maryland took a more aggressive approach. The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act (SB 736), enacted in 2026, goes beyond disclosure and prohibits merchants from setting prices based on personal data collected through surveillance of consumer behavior. Where New York requires disclosure, Maryland requires that the practice stop.
Key Provisions
- Prohibits any seller from using personal data collected through behavioral surveillance to offer prices not available to all consumers
- Enforcement by the Maryland Attorney General
- Civil remedies including disgorgement of profits obtained through prohibited pricing
- Does not apply to publicly available loyalty program pricing that consumers can affirmatively opt into
Maryland also introduced a separate disclosure bill, HB 1475, which passed the House and would layer transparency requirements on top of SB 736's prohibition.
Source: MD SB 736
4. Pending Bills: CA, IL, VT, CT, MD HB 1475
| State | Bill | Status | Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | AB 2564 | Introduced (2026) | Prohibition |
| Illinois | HB 4248 | Introduced (2026) | Disclosure & Opt-Out |
| Vermont | S.207 | Introduced (2026) | Prohibition |
| Connecticut | SB 4 | Introduced (2026) | Disclosure |
| Maryland | HB 1475 | Introduced (2026) | Disclosure |
California AB 2564
California's bill would prohibit businesses from using personal information to charge consumers different prices without affirmative prior consent. It applies to online retailers with more than $25 million in annual California revenue and would be enforced by the California Attorney General and California Privacy Protection Agency. Given California's record of enacting consumer privacy legislation, AB 2564 is closely watched.
Illinois HB 4248 (Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act)
Illinois takes a hybrid approach. HB 4248 requires merchants to: (1) disclose the categories of personal data used in price determination; and (2) provide consumers a right to opt out of surveillance pricing while still receiving the base market price. This balances disclosure with consumer choice without outright banning the practice.
Vermont S.207
Vermont's bill would prohibit retailers from using personal data to offer individualized prices not available to all consumers, with a private right of action allowing consumers to sue for actual damages plus attorney fees. Vermont has historically been aggressive on consumer privacy legislation.
5. Two Regulatory Models: Disclosure vs. Prohibition
State approaches to surveillance pricing fall into two broad camps:
Model 1 — Disclosure
Disclosure laws (New York, Connecticut, Maryland HB 1475) do not prohibit personalized pricing. They require merchants to tell consumers that the price they see is personalized and to identify the data categories used. The theory is that informed consumers can respond by clearing cookies, using a VPN, or switching to a merchant that doesn’t personalize prices. Critics argue disclosure is insufficient because consumers lack the ability to meaningfully respond to the information.
Model 2 — Prohibition
Prohibition laws (Maryland SB 736, Vermont S.207, California AB 2564) go further: they bar merchants from setting prices based on personal surveillance data at all. This eliminates the underlying practice rather than requiring transparency about it. The trade-off is compliance cost for retailers who rely on dynamic pricing for revenue optimization.
6. Compliance Checklist for Retailers
For retailers operating in states with enacted or pending surveillance pricing laws:
- Audit your pricing systems. Identify whether your pricing engine uses personal data including browsing history, purchase history, device type, IP location, or demographic inferences.
- Map data inputs by jurisdiction. Determine which of your pricing personalization practices are covered under New York’s (effective July 2025) and Maryland’s (effective 2026) laws.
- Implement disclosure for NY. For consumers in New York, add conspicuous pre-purchase notices identifying personal data categories used in price determination.
- Review MD SB 736 compliance. If you conduct surveillance-based personalized pricing for Maryland consumers, assess whether your practices fall within the prohibition or the loyalty-program carve-out.
- Monitor CA, IL, VT, CT pending bills. These states are likely to enact laws in 2026 or 2027. Begin gap assessments now.
- Review opt-out infrastructure. If Illinois HB 4248 passes, you will need a mechanism for consumers to opt out of personalized pricing while retaining access to the base market price.
- Document your data governance. Maintain records of what data categories are used in pricing algorithms; this documentation will be required for regulatory defense in multiple jurisdictions.
7. What’s Next: Federal Action Expected
The FTC’s 2024 inquiry was a significant signal of federal interest in surveillance pricing. The agency has not yet issued a rulemaking, but its report on algorithmic pricing practices is expected in 2026. Congressional proposals addressing the issue have been introduced but have not advanced. For now, the regulatory landscape is state-by-state, with New York and Maryland leading as the only enacted laws.
The trajectory is clear: more states will enact surveillance pricing legislation through 2026 and 2027, with some states converging on the prohibition model and others adopting disclosure. Federal preemption of state laws remains possible but unlikely in the near term.