In one paragraph
Minnesota's SF 3098 (1st engrossment) would add Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning individualized prices or wages set with an automated decision system from surveillance data about a consumer or worker, and would require published procedures for data accuracy and challenges. Introduced March 27, 2025; amended and re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection March 18, 2026 with no recommendation. It died when the 2026 session adjourned without passing.
Plain-English summary, written with AI assistance. The official text controls.
What it means for business
None: the bill did not pass. It would have covered any person using automated systems to set individualized consumer prices or worker wages from surveillance data.
Key provisions
- Prohibits a person from engaging in surveillance-based price discrimination: using an automated decision system to inform individualized prices based on surveillance data about a consumer
- Defenses for price differences justified by cost (selections, delivery distance or time), publicly stated group discounts open to anyone who qualifies (e.g. teachers, veterans, seniors, students), and insurers inputting only risk-relevant data; credit refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act consumer report are not covered
- Prohibits surveillance-based wage discrimination; defense if individualized wages rest solely on data directly related to the worker's tasks or the worker's cost of providing labor, and workers are told in plain language before hiring what data the system considers and how
- A person using an automated decision system to assist or replace human decisions on wages or prices must publish reasonable procedures to ensure data accuracy, let consumers and workers correct or challenge data, and let them request what data is considered and how
- Different prices (or wages) for the same or similar product (or tasks) in the same period raise a presumption of violation that the defendant can rebut; the text states no penalty
Latest legislative action
Mar 18, 2026. Comm report: Amended, No recommendation, re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection
Sponsors (showing 5 of 12)
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Frentz | Primary |
| Housley | Primary |
| Maye Quade | Primary |
| Murphy | Primary |
| Anderson, P. | Cosponsor |
Topics and industries
Related topics
Affected industries
This page is general information, not legal advice. Summaries are AI-assisted and may contain errors; read the statute for the controlling text and talk to a lawyer about your situation. Full disclaimer · Report an error