Session Expired

Your session has expired. Please sign in again to continue where you left off.

Sign In Again
Home › Trackers › Surveillance Pricing Tracker
Tracker

Surveillance Pricing Laws by State

72 bills in 31 states, the District of Columbia and Congress that would ban, require disclosure of, or study surveillance pricing: setting an individual consumer's price from their personal data. 4 states have enacted laws. Every entry was checked against official sources.

Get email alerts when these bills change ↓

Verified Sept. 30, 2026
4
Enacted
Signed into law
7
Passed at least one chamber
Passed one or both chambers; not yet law
25
Pending
Still alive in an active or carried-over session
36
Did not pass
Died when the session ended, or vetoed

What is surveillance pricing?

Surveillance pricing is setting the price a specific shopper sees from personal data collected about them, such as their browsing and purchase history, location, device or inferred traits like how price-sensitive they seem. Two people can be shown different prices for the same product at the same moment.

The Federal Trade Commission studied the practice in 2024. Its staff's January 2025 research summaries describe pricing tools that draw on a shopper's geolocation, demographic information, browsing behavior (down to mouse movements and inactivity), purchase and return history, and items left in a cart without buying. One hypothetical in the summaries: a shopper profiled as a new parent is shown higher-priced baby thermometers first.

Surveillance pricing vs. personalized and dynamic pricing

TermWhat sets the priceSame price for everyone at that moment?
Surveillance pricingPersonal data collected about the individual shopperNo
Personalized pricingInformation about the individual customer. Surveillance pricing is the data-driven kind; loyalty discounts and coupons are an open, familiar kindNo
Dynamic (surge) pricingDemand, time, inventory or other market conditionsYes

In most states, yes: no law specifically addresses it. As of Sept. 30, 2026, four states have enacted surveillance pricing laws: New York (Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, in effect since July 8, 2025), Maryland (Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, HB 895, effective Oct. 1, 2026), Connecticut (Public Act 26-130, HB 5563, effective July 1, 2027) and New Jersey (Fair Price Protection Act, A4085, effective Aug. 1, 2027). New York's law requires a disclosure; the Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey laws ban the practice in the sectors they cover. The table below lists each law, what it covers and its sources, and the full list tracks every bill still moving.

Source: FTC Surveillance Pricing 6(b) Study: Research Summaries, A Staff Perspective (January 2025); Surveillance Pricing Update & The Work Ahead, FTC (January 2025). For what the enacted laws require of retailers, see our surveillance pricing compliance guide.

Enacted surveillance pricing laws

Laws signed as of Sept. 30, 2026. Scope differs: check which businesses each law covers before relying on it.

State Law Type Signed Effective
New York S3008-C / A3008-C, Part X Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (GBL § 349-a) Applies to: Any business that sets prices with personal data
Summary & sources

Requires any business that sets a price with an algorithm using a consumer's personal data to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Attorney General enforcement with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; insurers and certain financial institutions are exempt.

Status: Enacted as Part X of the FY2026 budget bill; signed May 9, 2025 (Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2025). Effective July 8, 2025; the Attorney General began enforcing Nov. 10, 2025. A federal court dismissed the retail industry's challenge (NRF v. James, S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2025); the National Retail Federation appealed to the Second Circuit (No. 25-2818).

 Disclosure May 9, 2025 July 8, 2025Enforcement began Nov. 10, 2025
Maryland HB 895 / SB 387 Protection From Predatory Pricing Act Applies to: Food retailers (15,000+ sq ft) and third-party delivery service providers, for tax-exempt food
Summary & sources

Bars food retailers (stores of at least 15,000 square feet that sell tax-exempt food) and third-party delivery service providers from using dynamic pricing (a personalized price based on a consumer's personal data) or personal data to charge a specific consumer a higher price for food. Exceptions include promotions and temporary discounts, loyalty, membership and subscription programs, cost-based price differences and pricing-error corrections. The Attorney General must give notice and 45 days to cure before enforcing under the Consumer Protection Act; no private right of action. A disclosure requirement for other merchants was struck before passage.

Status: Passed both chambers (the House concurred in Senate Finance Committee amendments March 28, 2026); approved by Gov. Moore April 28, 2026 as Chapter 154, Laws of Maryland 2026. Senate cross-file SB 387 passed the Senate but the House bill was the one enacted.

 Prohibition April 28, 2026 Oct. 1, 2026
Connecticut HB 5563 (P.A. 26-130); first enacted in SB 4 (P.A. 26-64) Surveillance pricing ban (P.A. 26-130, Sec. 11) Applies to: Retail sellers and third-party delivery services
Summary & sources

Bars retail sellers and third-party delivery services doing business in Connecticut from surveillance pricing (customized prices based on a consumer's personal data), with exceptions for discounts, loyalty programs and cost differences. Online price offers that use personal data to increase a price must carry the notice 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Violations are unfair trade practices under CUTPA, enforced solely by the Attorney General; no private right of action.

Status: SB 4 (Public Act 26-64, approved May 27, 2026) first enacted a surveillance-pricing ban in its Section 11. According to the legislature's Office of Legislative Research, a later act (Public Act 26-100, Sec. 44, as amended by Public Act 26-130) replaced those provisions with similar language and delayed them to July 1, 2027. HB 5563 (Public Act 26-130, approved June 4, 2026) contains the final text in its Section 11, effective July 1, 2027, and repeals Section 44 of Public Act 26-100.

 Prohibition June 4, 2026 (HB 5563); May 27, 2026 (SB 4) July 1, 2027
New Jersey A4085 / S3612 Fair Price Protection Act Applies to: Sellers of groceries and other foodstuffs
Summary & sources

Bars surveillance pricing and any algorithm-based pricing strategy that varies the price of groceries and other foodstuffs based on a consumer's personal data, with exceptions for cost-based changes (at most once per 24 hours), publicly available discounts and opt-in loyalty programs. Also imposes a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels and orders a study. Violations are unlawful practices under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Status: Assembly Committee Substitute for A4085/A4523 passed the Assembly 51-20 and the Senate 22-14 on June 30, 2026 (substituted for S3612); signed by Gov. Sherrill July 23, 2026 as P.L.2026, c.55. Takes effect the first day of the 13th month after enactment (Aug. 1, 2027); the shelf-label moratorium starts the first day of the 7th month (Feb. 1, 2027).

 Prohibition July 23, 2026 Aug. 1, 2027Shelf-label moratorium from Feb. 1, 2027

All surveillance pricing bills

Companion and cross-filed bills are combined into one row. Click “Summary & sources” for what each bill does, its legislative history and the sources we checked.

Jurisdiction Bill Type Status Effective
Arizona HB 2489 Difference in pricing; prohibition; penalty
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance pricing (customized prices based on personal information), exempting cost-based differences, publicly disclosed eligibility discounts, group discounts with disclosure, loyalty/membership programs and credit products; civil penalty up to $3,500 per violation, Attorney General enforcement, pre-dispute arbitration clauses void.

History: Introduced Jan. 20, 2026 (Rep. De Los Santos); assigned to House Commerce and Rules; read second time Jan. 21, 2026; no hearing. Legislature adjourned sine die June 13, 2026 without passage.

 Prohibition Did not pass
California AB 2564 Surveillance pricing
Summary & sources

Would have added Civil Code Part 5.6 (Sec. 7200 et seq.) providing that a retailer shall not engage in 'surveillance pricing' (a customized price based on personal information collected by electronic surveillance and set with statistical modeling/AI, or random online price variations between consumers), with exceptions for listed loyalty/membership, group, first-time-visitor, abandoned-cart and prior-purchase discounts and credit decisions.

History: Passed Assembly 42-21 on May 27, 2026; passed Senate 22-14 on Aug. 31, 2026 with amendments; the final Assembly concurrence vote was not taken before the end-of-session deadline at midnight Aug. 31, 2026. Never enrolled or sent to the Governor. Last recorded action: 'In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending' (Aug. 31, 2026). Legislature's 2027-28 session convenes Dec. 7, 2026; any revival would need a new bill.

 Prohibition Did not passDid not pass (Senate amendments not concurred in)
California AB 446 Surveillance pricing
Summary & sources

Would have added Civil Code Part 5.6 regulating/prohibiting surveillance pricing by businesses (Asm. Ward); predecessor to 2026's AB 2564.

History: Passed Assembly 47-20 on May 12, 2025; Senate Judiciary and Appropriations passed it as amended (Aug. 29, 2025); placed on the Senate inactive file at Sen. McNerney's request Sept. 10, 2025; never taken up again before the Aug. 31, 2026 end-of-session deadline (AB 2564 carried the policy in 2026).

 Prohibition Did not pass
Colorado HB25-1264 Prohibit Surveillance Data to Set Prices and Wages
Summary & sources

Would have prohibited using surveillance data in automated decision systems to set discriminatory/individualized prices for consumers or wages for workers, treating violations as deceptive trade practices enforceable by the AG, district attorneys and aggrieved individuals.

History: Introduced Feb. 18, 2025 (Reps. Mabrey and Garcia); House Judiciary heard testimony April 2, 2025 and voted 7-4 to postpone indefinitely on April 22, 2025 (status: Lost).

 Prohibition Did not pass
Colorado HB26-1210 Prohibit Surveillance Price & Wage Setting
Summary & sources

Would have prohibited using surveillance data in algorithmic/automated systems to set individualized prices for consumers or individualized wages for workers (with exemptions where differential prices/wages meet specified criteria and the entity publishes accuracy/access/correction procedures), enforced as a deceptive trade practice by the AG, district attorneys and aggrieved individuals.

History: Passed House 39-24 (March 27, 2026); passed Senate 19-15 (May 6, 2026); House concurred in Senate amendments (43-21) and repassed (41-23) May 7, 2026; signed by presiding officers and sent to Governor May 29, 2026; vetoed by Gov. Polis June 2, 2026 (stated reason: overbroad, would sweep in common beneficial discounts).

 Prohibition Did not passVetoed by Gov. Polis (June 2, 2026)
Connecticut HB 5563 (P.A. 26-130); first enacted in SB 4 (P.A. 26-64) Surveillance pricing ban (P.A. 26-130, Sec. 11) Applies to: Retail sellers and third-party delivery services
Summary & sources

Bars retail sellers and third-party delivery services doing business in Connecticut from surveillance pricing (customized prices based on a consumer's personal data), with exceptions for discounts, loyalty programs and cost differences. Online price offers that use personal data to increase a price must carry the notice 'THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Violations are unfair trade practices under CUTPA, enforced solely by the Attorney General; no private right of action.

History: SB 4 (Public Act 26-64, approved May 27, 2026) first enacted a surveillance-pricing ban in its Section 11. According to the legislature's Office of Legislative Research, a later act (Public Act 26-100, Sec. 44, as amended by Public Act 26-130) replaced those provisions with similar language and delayed them to July 1, 2027. HB 5563 (Public Act 26-130, approved June 4, 2026) contains the final text in its Section 11, effective July 1, 2027, and repeals Section 44 of Public Act 26-100.

 Prohibition EnactedSigned June 4, 2026 (HB 5563); May 27, 2026 (SB 4) July 1, 2027
Delaware HS 1 for HB 453 AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 6 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SURVEILLANCE BASED PRICING DISCRIMINATION.
Summary & sources

Would make surveillance-based price discrimination unlawful in merchandise transactions (with safe harbors for cost-justified differences, objective status discounts and uniform loyalty programs; financial services excluded) and ban electronic shelf labels at large food stores. Takes effect Jan. 1, 2027 if enacted, with a Department of Justice notice-and-cure period through July 31, 2027. Enforcement by the Department of Justice plus a private right of action (actual damages or $3,000 per violation, whichever is greater; treble damages for bad-faith or willful violations).

History: HB 453 introduced June 4, 2026; House Substitute 1 reported out of committee and placed on the House Ready List June 18, 2026. House Amendments 1 and 2 were placed with the bill June 24 and 25, 2026 (per LegiScan). No floor vote before the regular session ended June 30, 2026.

 Prohibition PendingStalled on House ready listLast action June 25, 2026
District of Columbia B26-0224 RESALE Amendment Act Applies to: Tickets to live entertainment events
Summary & sources

Caps ticket resale prices (120% of face value including fees), requires all-in pricing, bans speculative sales and bot scalping, and prohibits personalized (surveillance) ticket pricing from personally identifiable information, while keeping senior/veteran-type discounts lawful.

History: Final Council vote July 14, 2026 (13-0). Next steps per the Council: the Mayor, then 30-day congressional review; most provisions apply from Jan. 1, 2027. A third-party legislative tracker reports the Mayor signed it Aug. 10, 2026 and that it became law Sept. 25, 2026; we have not been able to confirm this on an official D.C. source.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed Council; final enactment not yet confirmedCouncil final vote July 14, 2026
District of Columbia B26-0667 Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance pricing of consumer goods in the District.

History: Introduced April 20, 2026 by Councilmember Henderson; referred April 21, 2026 to Committee on Public Works and Operations with comments from Judiciary and Public Safety; notice of intent to act April 24, 2026; notice of public hearing filed Sept. 30, 2026 for a hearing on Oct. 19, 2026 at 9:30 am (Room 500). Council Period 26 runs through December 2026.

 Prohibition PendingIn committee (hearing scheduled Oct. 19, 2026)Last action Sept. 30, 2026
Florida HB 1499 / SB 1746 Pricing Based on Collection of Consumer Information
Summary & sources

Would declare surveillance pricing unlawful, require clear disclosures by those advertising pricing based on collected consumer information, and bar consumers from waiving the protections.

History: Filed Jan. 9, 2026; first reading Jan. 13, 2026; referred Jan. 15, 2026 to Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee and Commerce Committee; died in the subcommittee on March 13, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Georgia HB 1439 Georgia Surveillance Pricing Act; enact
Summary & sources

Would enact the Georgia Surveillance Pricing Act, amending the Fair Business Practices Act to prohibit surveillance pricing by retail food establishments, limit electronic shelf label use, and add enforcement and penalties.

History: Introduced (hopper) Feb. 24, 2026 (Rep. Park et al.); House first readers Feb. 25, 2026; second readers Feb. 26, 2026; never reached a committee vote. Died at Sine Die April 2, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Georgia SB 164 Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would amend Georgia's trade practices law to prohibit surveillance-based price discrimination against consumers and surveillance-based wage discrimination against workers, with Attorney General enforcement and civil penalties (reported up to $10,000 per violation) and a private action for damages.

History: Filed Feb. 12, 2025 (13 Senate Democrats); read and referred to Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee Feb. 13, 2025; no further action. Died at the end of the 2025-26 General Assembly: Sine Die was April 2, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Hawaii HB 2458 Relating to Surveillance Pricing
Summary & sources

Would direct the Office of Consumer Protection to study how widely surveillance pricing is used in Hawaii and whether to recommend legislation (including a possible prohibition in food sales), with an appropriation; it does not itself prohibit or require anything.

History: Introduced Jan. 28, 2026 (Rep. Grandinetti et al.); passed House Third Reading March 10, 2026; Senate LBT passed with amendments (SD1) March 23, 2026; re-referred to LBT, CPN/WAM March 30, 2026 and never advanced; session ended ~May 8, 2026 without passage.

 Study Did not passDid not pass (passed House)
Hawaii SB 2036 Consumer Protection; Surveillance Pricing; Prohibition
Summary & sources

Would declare it unlawful for any person to engage in 'surveillance pricing' (offering or setting a customized price for a consumer or group based on information collected through electronic surveillance technology), with exemptions for cost differences, publicly disclosed eligibility discounts, group discounts, voluntary loyalty programs, insurers and FCRA credit decisions, treating violations as unfair and deceptive practices under HRS 480-2.

History: Introduced Jan. 21, 2026; referred to LBT, CPN Jan. 22, 2026; hearing rescheduled to Feb. 11, 2026 and the committee on LBT deferred the measure that day; never advanced. Session ended ~May 8, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Illinois HB 4248 Protection from Surveillance Pricing Act (as amended by the Senate)
Summary & sources

As amended and passed by the Senate on May 31, 2026, the Protection from Surveillance Pricing Act would prohibit surveillance pricing, with exemptions for cost-based, time-based, group and loyalty discounts and certain financial institutions (air carriers and most insurance are excluded), enforced under the Consumer Fraud Act by the Attorney General, State's Attorneys and private lawsuits. The House-passed version (May 22, 2026) was also a prohibition. The bill was introduced as a disclosure-and-opt-out measure.

History: House passed 78-19 on May 22, 2026; the Senate passed it with Senate Floor Amendment 1 (41-16) on May 31, 2026. The House has not concurred in the Senate amendment; the bill was re-referred to the House Rules Committee on July 1, 2026 and has not been sent to the Governor. The 104th General Assembly remains in session until January 2027, so the House could still act.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed both chambers in different versions; House has not concurredLast action July 1, 2026
Illinois HB 4544 Algorithmic Pricing (Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act)
Summary & sources

Would create the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act requiring a notice ('THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA') when consumer data sets an individual's price and prohibiting use of protected-class data (race, age, disability, sex, etc.) to deny accommodations or charge different prices; Consumer Fraud Act enforcement with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; insurance/financial services exempt.

History: Filed Jan. 22, 2026 (Rep. Delgado); first reading and referred to Rules Committee Jan. 30, 2026; never assigned to a committee; spring session adjourned May 31, 2026. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Disclosure PendingStalled in committeeLast action Jan. 30, 2026
Illinois HB 4717 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure
Summary & sources

Would create the Personalized Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act requiring advertisers that use personalized algorithmic pricing with consumers' personal data to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'; exempts insurers, financial institutions and subscription discounts; Consumer Fraud Act remedies; effective on becoming law.

History: Filed Jan. 30, 2026 (Rep. Amy Grant, R); first reading and referred to Rules Committee Feb. 6, 2026; never assigned to a committee; spring session adjourned May 31, 2026 without action. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Disclosure PendingStalled in committeeLast action Feb. 6, 2026
Illinois HB 4985 Surveillance-Based Pricing (Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act)
Summary & sources

Would create the Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act providing that a person shall not use surveillance data (data obtained through observation, inference or surveillance about personal characteristics, behaviors or biometrics) as part of an automated decision system to inform an individualized consumer price; exempts insurers and FCRA credit decisions; Attorney General enforcement (civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation) and a private right of action ($3,000 per violation or actual damages, trebled for bad faith).

History: Filed Feb. 4, 2026 (Rep. Syed); assigned to Consumer Protection Committee March 18, 2026; re-referred to Rules under Rule 19(a) March 27, 2026; no further action. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Prohibition PendingStalled in committeeLast action March 27, 2026
Illinois HB 5323 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure
Summary & sources

Would create the Personalized Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (new Sec. 2MMMM of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act) requiring advertisers using personalized algorithmic pricing to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'; exempts insurers, GLBA financial institutions and subscription discounts; violations are unlawful practices under the Consumer Fraud Act; effective on becoming law.

History: Filed Feb. 5, 2026 (Rep. Rashid); assigned to House Consumer Protection Committee March 4, 2026; re-referred to Rules Committee under Rule 19(a) March 27, 2026 (committee deadline) and never advanced; spring session adjourned May 31, 2026 without action. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027, but no path is visible; LegiScan lists 'Dead' as of March 27, 2026.

 Disclosure PendingStalled in committeeLast action March 27, 2026
Illinois HB 5756 Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure (Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act)
Summary & sources

Would create the Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act requiring online sellers to disclose when a consumer's baseline price is personalized using surveillance pricing, allowing consumers to opt out, and barring use of sensitive personal information (race, religion, medical information, etc.) in pricing algorithms.

History: Filed April 27, 2026 (Rep. Hirschauer; Buckner chief co-sponsor); first reading and referred to Rules May 5, 2026; no further action. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Disclosure & Opt-Out PendingStalled in committeeLast action May 15, 2026
Illinois SB 2255 Surveillance Discrimination (Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act)
Summary & sources

Would create the Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act barring use of surveillance data in an automated decision system to inform an individualized consumer price or an individualized employee wage, with exemptions for insurers and credit decisions, Attorney General enforcement and private rights of action.

History: Filed Feb. 7, 2025 (Sen. Peters); committee assignments in 2025 and 2026 (Executive; AI and Social Media) with Senate Committee Amendment 1 filed Feb. 24, 2026; re-referred to Assignments under Rule 3-9(a) on May 22, 2026 (deadline) and never reached the floor. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Prohibition PendingStalled in committeeLast action May 22, 2026
Iowa SF 2278 A bill for an act prohibiting personalized algorithmic pricing and surveillance pricing at certain food retail establishments, and providing civil penalties
Summary & sources

Would create Iowa Code chapter 554J for large food retail establishments (over 15,000 sq ft, or over 85,000 sq ft with 10%+ food space): requires a disclosure ('THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA') when using personalized algorithmic pricing, bars electronic/digital shelf labels used to display personalized algorithmic or surveillance pricing, bars use of protected-class data in pricing, and bars collecting minors' (under 17) data for targeted ads or personalized pricing; Attorney General enforcement with civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation.

History: Introduced and referred to Senate Commerce Feb. 11, 2026 (Sen. Wahls); subcommittee assigned Feb. 12, 2026; no further action. Iowa adjourned sine die May 3, 2026 (112th calendar day) without passage.

 Other Did not pass
Kentucky HB 33 AN ACT relating to data privacy (Kentucky Price Fairness Act)
Summary & sources

Kentucky Price Fairness Act: prohibits controllers from surveillance pricing (a customized price increase for a specific consumer or group based on individualized data collected through electronic surveillance/observation/inference) or using an automated-decision system to set prices based on individualized data; carve-out for bona fide voluntary loyalty/rewards programs.

History: Introduced Jan. 6, 2026; referred to House Small Business & Information Technology Jan. 13, 2026; no further action (sponsors A. Moore, S. Sharp, C. Aull, K. Banta, G. Brown Jr., A. Gentry). Kentucky's 2026 Regular Session adjourned sine die April 15, 2026; bills not passed by both chambers died.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Louisiana HB 471 COMMERCE: Provides relative to prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination
Summary & sources

Would prohibit any person from surveillance-based price discrimination, i.e. individualized prices set using surveillance data, with exceptions for cost differences and uniform/transparent discount programs (Rep. Edmond Jordan).

History: Prefiled Feb. 26, 2026; referred to House Commerce March 9, 2026; House Commerce 'Defer Voluntary' 14-0 on April 22, 2026 (no further action). Louisiana's 2026 Regular Session ran March 9, 2026 to its 6 p.m. June 1, 2026 adjournment; no special session reported.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Louisiana SB 362 CONSUMERS/PROTECTION: Provides that surveillance-based price discrimination is an unfair or deceptive trade practice or act
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance-based price discrimination and declare it an unfair or deceptive trade practice (Sen. Royce Duplessis); exceptions for cost-justified pricing, publicly available discounts, certain insurance practices.

History: Prefiled Feb. 27, 2026; referred to Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection & International Affairs March 9, 2026; April 15, 2026 heard, no motion made; April 22, 2026 'Defer indefinitely' without objection. Louisiana's 2026 Regular Session ran March 9, 2026 to its 6 p.m. June 1, 2026 adjournment; no special session reported.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Maine LD 1597 An Act to Prohibit the Use of Dynamic Pricing for Certain Consumer Goods
Summary & sources

Would prohibit restaurants and grocery stores from dynamic pricing (including by consumer data) and require prices to stay fixed for at least one business day and be posted visibly, with exceptions for discounts, limited-time specials and market-priced goods such as seafood; violations are unfair trade practices.

History: Referred to Housing and Economic Development April 10, 2025; work session May 15, 2025 voted Ought Not to Pass; reported out May 20, 2025; final disposition 'Ought Not to Pass Pursuant To Joint Rule 310' on May 21, 2025.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Maryland HB 1475 Consumer Protection - Dynamic Pricing Disclosure and Prohibition on Rent-Setting
Summary & sources

Would bar merchants from using personalized algorithmic pricing without a clear and conspicuous disclosure, and bar residential landlords from setting/adjusting rent or lease terms via coordinating algorithmic tools; violations unfair/deceptive trade practices (sponsor: The Speaker).

History: First reading and referral to House Economic Matters Feb. 13, 2026; hearing held March 3, 2026; no further action recorded. Maryland's 2026 Regular Session ran Jan. 14, 2026 to April 13, 2026 (a special session was held Aug 3-4, 2026, unrelated).

 Disclosure Did not pass
Maryland HB 895 / SB 387 Protection From Predatory Pricing Act Applies to: Food retailers (15,000+ sq ft) and third-party delivery service providers, for tax-exempt food
Summary & sources

Bars food retailers (stores of at least 15,000 square feet that sell tax-exempt food) and third-party delivery service providers from using dynamic pricing (a personalized price based on a consumer's personal data) or personal data to charge a specific consumer a higher price for food. Exceptions include promotions and temporary discounts, loyalty, membership and subscription programs, cost-based price differences and pricing-error corrections. The Attorney General must give notice and 45 days to cure before enforcing under the Consumer Protection Act; no private right of action. A disclosure requirement for other merchants was struck before passage.

History: Passed both chambers (the House concurred in Senate Finance Committee amendments March 28, 2026); approved by Gov. Moore April 28, 2026 as Chapter 154, Laws of Maryland 2026. Senate cross-file SB 387 passed the Senate but the House bill was the one enacted.

 Prohibition EnactedSigned April 28, 2026 Oct. 1, 2026
Maryland SB 889 Consumer Protection and Labor and Employment - Electronic Shelving Labels and Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Setting - Prohibitions
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance-based price setting for consumer goods and services, bar food retailers from electronic shelving labels, and prohibit employers' surveillance-based wage setting (Sen. Lam); violations unfair trade practices.

History: First reading Feb. 6, 2026 (Senate Finance); hearing March 12, 2026; no further action. Maryland's 2026 Regular Session ran Jan. 14, 2026 to April 13, 2026 (a special session was held Aug 3-4, 2026, unrelated).

 Prohibition Did not pass
Massachusetts H.99 / S.47 (redrafted as S.2515) An Act relative to surveillance pricing in grocery stores
Summary & sources

Would bar food stores and food departments from suggesting items or adjusting prices based on the biometric data of individuals.

History: H.99 reported favorably and ordered to a third reading in the House Aug. 18, 2025; S.47 replaced by new draft S.2515, reported favorably May 12, 2025 and sent to Senate Ways and Means. Neither passed before formal sessions ended July 31, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not passDid not pass (formal sessions ended)
Michigan HB 5222 (with HB 5223, HB 5224) Dynamic pricing of groceries; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would prohibit retail groceries from using dynamic pricing on food (including adjustments by customer attributes such as demographic profile or purchase history), allow only employee-made, uniform, posted adjustments, require 12-month price-change records, and take effect 180 days after enactment.

History: Introduced Nov. 5, 2025 (Rep. Jason Morgan and 15 sponsors); referred to House Committee on Economic Competitiveness; reproduced Nov. 6, 2025; no further action recorded. Michigan 2025-26 session still active.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action Nov. 6, 2025
Michigan HB 5771 Consumer protection: other; surveillance pricing; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would ban surveillance pricing (customized prices from PII collected via electronic surveillance technology), with exceptions for cost differences, opt-in loyalty programs, public group discounts, insurance and FCRA credit-report use; AG enforcement with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation plus revenues earned.

History: Introduced March 19, 2026 (Rep. Arbit, 31 sponsors); referred to House Committee on Economic Competitiveness; bill electronically reproduced April 14, 2026; no further action recorded. Michigan 2025-26 session is still active.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action April 14, 2026
Michigan HB 6098 / HB 6099 Use of surveillance pricing in the sale of certain goods and services; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance pricing (price increases based on an individual's personal identifiable data) in trade or commerce under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, carving out dynamic pricing, taxes, delivery fees, loyalty programs, financial institutions, FCRA consumer-report pricing and insurance; AG/prosecuting-attorney enforcement only (no private right of action).

History: Introduced June 16, 2026 (Rep. Frisbie; referred to Regulatory Reform). On June 25, 2026 the committee was discharged, Substitute H-2 adopted, and the House passed it 92-15 with immediate effect. Received in Senate and referred to Committee on Economic and Community Development on July 1, 2026; no later action recorded on the legislature's bill page as of Sept. 30, 2026. Michigan is a full-time legislature (2025-26 session still active).

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed HouseLast action July 1, 2026
Michigan SB 991 Prohibition on using certain algorithms and protected class data to set prices; amends the Michigan Consumer Protection Act
Summary & sources

Would prohibit online personalized algorithmic pricing keyed to device hardware or state, installed software, inferences from geolocation, or protected-class data, with exceptions (repairs/trade-ins, real-time demand pricing, legitimate cost/tax differences) and an insurer exemption.

History: Introduced and referred to Committee on Economic and Community Development on May 20, 2026 (Sen. McMorrow and 12 sponsors); no further action recorded.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action May 20, 2026
Michigan SB 992 / SB 993 Trade: consumer goods and services; use of dynamic pricing in the sale of certain consumer items; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would prohibit retailers from dynamically adjusting consumer-item prices, including by customer attributes (location, demographic profile, purchase history), with exceptions for employee-made spoilage/restock/promotional changes, uniform digital price tags, and uniform coupons/loyalty discounts.

History: Introduced and referred to Committee on Economic and Community Development on May 20, 2026 (Sen. Cherry and 4 sponsors); no further action recorded. Effective date contingent on SB 993.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action May 20, 2026
Minnesota HF 3794 / SF 4233 (also HF 4131) Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibited
Summary & sources

Would prohibit surveillance-based price and wage discrimination (Rep. Greenman et al.); Senate companion SF 4233 (Sens. Maye Quade, Boldon).

History: Introduced Feb. 26, 2026, referred to House Commerce Finance and Policy; heard March 4, 2026 and March 25, 2026 per House unofficial status; authors added through April 23, 2026; no further action. Minnesota's 2026 session had to adjourn by May 18, 2026 and finished on time; the bill did not advance out of committee.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Minnesota SF 3098 / HF 2452 Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices (first engrossment text prohibits surveillance-based price and wage discrimination)
Summary & sources

Would prohibit using automated decision systems to set individualized prices (and worker wages) from surveillance data on personal characteristics, behaviors or biometrics, with exemptions for cost-justified differences, public group discounts, insurers' risk-relevant data, and FCRA credit decisions; presumptive violation when individuals receive different prices for identical products.

History: Introduced March 27, 2025, referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection; withdrawn and re-referred to Judiciary and Public Safety Feb. 26, 2026; March 18, 2026 committee report 'amended, no recommendation', re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection; no further action. Minnesota's 2026 session had to adjourn by May 18, 2026 and finished on time; the bill did not advance out of committee.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Nebraska LB 1006 Adopt the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act
Summary & sources

Bans surveillance pricing and personalized algorithmic pricing statewide, requires disclosure of the practice, prohibits protected-class pricing differences, and bars ESLs in grocery stores larger than 10,000 sq ft; financial services and insurers exempt; AG enforcement.

History: Introduced Jan. 13, 2026 (Sen. Guereca; Conrad added Jan. 15, 2026); referred to Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee; hearing Feb. 10, 2026 (opponent testimony from an ESL manufacturer); indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026 at end of session.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Nebraska LB 1078 Adopt the Fair Online Pricing Act
Summary & sources

Would prohibit device-based online pricing (hardware, hardware state, installed software, geolocation inferences) with exceptions for repairs/trade-ins, real-time demand pricing, and legitimate cost or tax differences; AG enforcement with civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

History: Introduced Jan. 15, 2026 (Sen. Dungan); referred to Banking, Commerce and Insurance Jan. 20, 2026; hearing noticed for Feb. 10, 2026; indefinitely postponed April 17, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
New Jersey A4085 / S3612 Fair Price Protection Act Applies to: Sellers of groceries and other foodstuffs
Summary & sources

Bars surveillance pricing and any algorithm-based pricing strategy that varies the price of groceries and other foodstuffs based on a consumer's personal data, with exceptions for cost-based changes (at most once per 24 hours), publicly available discounts and opt-in loyalty programs. Also imposes a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels and orders a study. Violations are unlawful practices under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

History: Assembly Committee Substitute for A4085/A4523 passed the Assembly 51-20 and the Senate 22-14 on June 30, 2026 (substituted for S3612); signed by Gov. Sherrill July 23, 2026 as P.L.2026, c.55. Takes effect the first day of the 13th month after enactment (Aug. 1, 2027); the shelf-label moratorium starts the first day of the 7th month (Feb. 1, 2027).

 Prohibition EnactedSigned July 23, 2026 Aug. 1, 2027
New Jersey A4685 Prohibits use and sale of algorithmic devices that set sale price of goods or services
Summary & sources

Makes it unlawful for a business entity to use, sell, distribute or provide access to an algorithmic device that uses a consumer's personal data to recommend or set the sale price of goods or services; Attorney General civil actions (up to $1,000 per violation); takes effect the first day of the 7th month after enactment (Assemblymen Bailey, Stanley, Venezia).

History: Introduced March 16, 2026; referred to Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee; no further action recorded (LegiScan). NJ's 2026-2027 session began Jan. 13, 2026 and remains active through Jan 2028; the 2024-2025 session ended Jan 2026.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action March 16, 2026
New Jersey S3732 Prohibits certain businesses from using dynamic, surveillance, or personalized algorithmic pricing when selling groceries to consumers
Summary & sources

Makes it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for retail food stores and third-party grocery delivery platforms to use dynamic pricing, surveillance pricing or personalized algorithmic pricing when selling groceries; loyalty/promotional discounts allowed; civil penalties to fund a Grocery Pricing Fairness Fund (Sens. Timberlake, Polistina).

History: Introduced March 5, 2026 and referred to Senate Commerce Committee; no further action recorded by LegiScan. The grocery-surveillance-pricing subject was separately enacted through A4085 (P.L.2026, c.55, signed July 23, 2026), which makes this bill largely moot. NJ's 2026-2027 session began Jan. 13, 2026 and remains active through Jan 2028; the 2024-2025 session ended Jan 2026.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action March 5, 2026
New Mexico HB 285 AN ACT RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION; MAKING IT AN UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE TO USE DYNAMIC PRICING... (LegiScan short title: 'Use Of Certain Dynamic Pricing As Unfair')
Summary & sources

Would make it an unfair practice for stores to change ESL prices from personal data or purchasing patterns (or during emergencies) and require signage disclosing the pricing process, factors, and customers' option to opt out of personal-data collection.

History: Introduced Feb. 5, 2025 (Reps. Silva and Martinez; referred to House Commerce & Economic Development then Judiciary); LegiScan records no action after referral; NCSL's 2025 tracker shows 'Action Postponed Indefinitely'; KRQE reports it failed to pass in 2025. The 2025 session ended about March 22, 2025.

 Prohibition Did not pass
New Mexico SB 223 Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act
Summary & sources

Would ban surveillance-based price discrimination with exceptions for cost differences, uniform discounts (military, veterans, teachers, students, seniors), voluntarily provided information, insurers and properly de-identified data; AG and district-attorney enforcement ($10,000 per willful violation) plus a private right of action ($3,000 per violation, treble for bad faith).

History: Introduced Feb. 3, 2026 (Sen. Berghmans; referred to SCC/STBTC/SJC); LegiScan shows 'Action Postponed Indefinitely' the same day and no hearing. The 30-day 2026 session ended around Feb. 19, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
New York A6765-A / S7033 Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act (renumbers GBL §349-a to §349-h; adds new §349-a; amends §396)
Summary & sources

Requires persons advertising personalized algorithmic pricing based on consumer data to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA', and bars use of protected-class data to withhold accommodations or create price differentials; AG enforcement, civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; 60-day effective clause.

History: Sponsor Torres. Reported from Consumer Affairs (14-1), Codes (21-0) and Rules (30-0) March 25, 2025 and amended on third reading (6765A); re-calendared Jan. 7, 2026 (cal. 173). Never brought to a floor vote; no Assembly passage. Senate companion S7033 is stricken.

 Disclosure PendingOn Assembly floor calendar (Senate version stricken)Last action Jan. 7, 2026
New York S3008-C / A3008-C, Part X Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (GBL § 349-a) Applies to: Any business that sets prices with personal data
Summary & sources

Requires any business that sets a price with an algorithm using a consumer's personal data to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.' Attorney General enforcement with civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; insurers and certain financial institutions are exempt.

History: Enacted as Part X of the FY2026 budget bill; signed May 9, 2025 (Chapter 58 of the Laws of 2025). Effective July 8, 2025; the Attorney General began enforcing Nov. 10, 2025. A federal court dismissed the retail industry's challenge (NRF v. James, S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2025); the National Retail Federation appealed to the Second Circuit (No. 25-2818).

 Disclosure EnactedSigned May 9, 2025 July 8, 2025
New York S8483-C / A9348-A Prohibits online retailers from basing prices on certain criteria (adds GBL §219)
Summary & sources

Prohibits online retailers from basing reference prices on an online device's hardware or hardware state, the presence or absence of software (opt-in exception) or geolocation data (exceptions for cost/demand differences, real-time demand surcharges, taxes); civil penalties up to $5,000 first / $20,000 subsequent violation.

History: Sponsor Sen. Ryan. Senate passed May 12, 2026 (print 8483C) and delivered to the Assembly, where companion A9348A (Torres) sits in Consumer Affairs and Protection (amended and recommitted May 12, 2026); no Assembly vote.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed SenateLast action May 12, 2026
New York S8616-B / A9396-B Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act (adds GBL §349-a-1)
Summary & sources

Prohibits food retail and drug retail establishments from using electronic shelving labels or other digital shelf display technology and from engaging in surveillance pricing; civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation (each day a separate offense) via AG/municipal enforcement; no private right of action.

History: Senate passed May 13, 2026 (as S8616A), bill recalled from Assembly, amended (8616B) and repassed Senate June 4, 2026. Assembly substituted A9396B with S8616B and ordered it to third reading (Rules cal. 545) on June 5, 2026, but the Assembly never passed it before the Legislature wrapped up June 5, 2026 (Assembly adjourned at the call of the Speaker). Not delivered to Governor.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed SenateLast action June 5, 2026
New York S8623-B / A9349-B One Fair Price Act
Summary & sources

Prohibits entities and service providers from setting or advertising prices using surveillance pricing (algorithmic pricing that uses personal data to charge different consumers different prices) and from collecting, using, selling or retaining personal data to facilitate it; allows bona fide custom discounts (loyalty, class-based, prior-purchase), excepts insurance/credit pricing and legally required pricing; separately requires disclosure when dynamic pricing changes prices more than once per 24 hours; AG enforcement, civil penalties up to $5,000 (first) / $20,000 (subsequent); no private right of action.

History: Passed both houses June 4, 2026 (Senate 39-21, Assembly 100-42). As of Sept. 30, 2026 the official records show no delivery to Gov. Hochul and no signature or veto. If signed, it takes effect 180 days after becoming law.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed legislature; not yet sent to governorLast action June 4, 2026
North Carolina S 835 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE PRICING FOR ESSENTIAL GOODS AND SERVICES
Summary & sources

Would make it an unfair trade practice for sellers of essential goods and services (food, water, paper products, toiletries, diapers, feminine products) to vary prices within one business day, with exceptions for loyalty and temporary promotions, objective costs, group discounts and error corrections; appropriates $210,738 recurring plus $50,000 for DOJ enforcement and education; effective Oct. 1, 2026 if enacted.

History: Filed April 23, 2026 (Sen. Grafstein) and referred to committee April 27, 2026; no further action. North Carolina's 2025-26 session runs through Dec. 31, 2026.

 Other PendingIn committeeLast action April 27, 2026
Oklahoma HB 3959 Technology; Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act; personalized algorithmic pricing; consumer data; food retailers
Summary & sources

Rep. Munson's bill would require food retailers to label personalized algorithmic prices ('THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'), ban electronic shelf labels at food stores over 15,000 sq ft, make it unlawful for a food retailer to engage in personalized algorithmic or surveillance pricing, bar use of minors' data and of protected-class data in pricing, with AG enforcement ($7,500 per violation) and a private right of action; effective date Nov. 1, 2026.

History: First reading Feb. 2, 2026; Feb. 3, 2026 referred to Rules; Feb. 4, 2026 withdrawn from Rules and referred to Commerce and Economic Development Oversight and to Business; no further action. Second-session bill, so it died at sine die (HCR 1027: chambers deemed adjourned sine die 5:00 pm May 14, 2026 unless reconvened, outer limit May 29, 2026).

 Prohibition Did not pass
Pennsylvania HB 1779 Algorithmic Pricing Transparency and Fairness Act (PN 2188)
Summary & sources

Requires anyone advertising or offering personalized algorithmic pricing based on consumer data to display 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA', bars using protected-class data to set prices, with AG injunctions and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation; exempts insurers and financial institutions; effective 60 days after enactment.

History: Introduced July 31, 2025 (Rep. Guzman); referred Aug. 4, 2025 to House Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities; no votes or committee meetings listed. Pennsylvania's session runs to Nov. 30, 2026, so the bill is technically still live.

 Disclosure PendingIn committeeLast action Aug. 4, 2025
Pennsylvania HB 1942 Surveillance Pricing Act (PN 2451)
Summary & sources

Rep. Burgos's Surveillance Pricing Act bans surveillance pricing (customized prices for a consumer or group based on PII collected through sensors, cameras, device tracking, biometric monitoring), with exceptions for cost-based differences and uniformly offered, publicly disclosed discounts, and imposes penalties.

History: Introduced Oct. 14, 2025; referred Oct. 16, 2025 to House Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities; the committee held a public hearing Jan. 27, 2026; no vote listed.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 27, 2026
Pennsylvania HB 2512 Public Utilities; transportation network service; surveillance prices (PN 3399) Applies to: Ride-share (TNC) fares
Summary & sources

Rep. Carroll's bill amends 66 Pa.C.S. 2607 to prohibit a transportation network company from charging a fare based in whole or part on an online device's hardware or hardware state, the presence or absence of software, or its geolocation (exceptions for cost or demand differences, real-time demand pricing, location-based tax/cost variances, and promotions).

History: Introduced May 13, 2026 (Rep. Carroll); reported by House Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities June 9, 2026 (26-0); re-committed to Appropriations June 24, 2026 and re-reported June 29, 2026; passed the House 198-4 on June 29, 2026; referred to Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure July 9, 2026; no Senate action recorded.

 Prohibition Passed at least one chamberPassed HouseLast action July 9, 2026
Pennsylvania SB 1401 Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; surveillance pricing (PN 1869)
Summary & sources

Sen. L. Williams's bill makes surveillance pricing an unfair/deceptive practice, defines it as customized prices based on personal data bought from third parties or gathered by sensors, cameras or device tracking (exceptions for cost differences, uniform discounts and loyalty programs, insurers, credit-report-based refusals), raises the civil penalty to $3,000 per violation, voids waivers and allows private actions.

History: Introduced and referred July 8, 2026 to Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure; no committee action.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action July 8, 2026
Rhode Island H 7849 Commercial Law -- General Regulatory Provisions -- Filing of Trade Name (Surveillance Pricing and Online Retailing Act) [LC5691/1]
Summary & sources

Creates R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 6-13.4: online retailers may not knowingly apply an algorithmic price increase (above the uniform baseline price) based on personal data tied to an individual consumer; price decreases and non-personalized dynamic pricing are allowed; a transparency notice is required for permitted data-influenced pricing; AG enforcement, $100 per violation.

History: Introduced Feb. 27, 2026 (Rep. Marszalkowski), referred to House Corporations; heard March 3, 2026 and committee recommended the measure be held for further study; no further action before the session ended.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Rhode Island S 2428 Commercial Law -- General Regulatory Provisions -- Deceptive Trade Practices (dynamic and surveillance pricing) [LC4221/1]
Summary & sources

Adds R.I. Gen. Laws 6-13.1-31 making it a deceptive trade practice to employ dynamic pricing (real-time price adjustment on demand, time, weather, other external conditions, or algorithmic analysis producing non-uniform prices) or surveillance pricing (price adjustments based on personal data about a consumer or household); exceptions for ordinary discounts/loyalty and documented cost differences; private right of action and AG enforcement.

History: Introduced Feb. 6, 2026 (Sen. Euer and 9 others), referred to Senate Commerce; heard March 24, 2026 and held for further study; no further action.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Tennessee SB 1807 / HB 1468 Consumer Protection; algorithmic pricing (personalized algorithmic pricing ban)
Summary & sources

Adds Tenn. Code 47-18-139: an entity shall not set the price of a good or service for a consumer using personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data); exemptions for insurers, financial institutions, and lower subscription-contract prices; a violation is a Tennessee Consumer Protection Act violation; effective July 1, 2026.

History: Filed Jan. 20, 2026 (Sen. Bailey); passed first consideration Jan. 21, 2026; referred to Senate Commerce and Labor Feb. 24, 2026; deferred repeatedly in March; assigned to the General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor April 7, 2026 (last action). Adjourned sine die April 23, 2026; second-year bills die at adjournment.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Tennessee SB 1998 / HB 2052 Consumer Protection (food retail establishments; nondigital price presentation; personalized algorithmic pricing)
Summary & sources

Bars food retail establishments over 15,000 sq ft from using electronic shelf labels, requires non-digital price presentation, prohibits personalized algorithmic pricing, use of under-17 consumer data for targeted ads or personalized pricing, and use of protected-class data in setting prices; AG and private enforcement.

History: Filed Jan. 22, 2026 (Sen. Lamar); referred to Senate Commerce and Labor Feb. 24, 2026; deferred to March 10, 2026; assigned to the General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor March 10, 2026 (last action). Adjourned sine die April 23, 2026; second-year bills die at adjournment.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Utah S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments
Summary & sources

Would require a conspicuous disclosure whenever a price is set or displayed by an algorithm using the consumer's personal data; violation is a deceptive act enforced by the Division of Consumer Protection; proposed effective date May 6, 2026.

History: Introduced Jan. 22, 2026 (Sen. Pitcher, House sponsor Rep. Clancy); Senate Business and Labor Committee: substitute recommendation approved 6-0 on Feb. 6, 2026 but motion to recommend failed 2-6; returned to Rules March 2, 2026; enacting clause struck and filed as not passed on March 6, 2026 (end of session).

 Disclosure Did not pass
Utah S.B. 293 Consumer Pricing Data Amendments
Summary & sources

Would prohibit using personal data, biometrics or purchase history to determine individual prices, require 3-year retention of pricing data for automated pricing systems, and give the Division of Consumer Protection administrative fines up to $2,500 per violation and court remedies.

History: Introduced Feb. 13, 2026 (Sen. Balderree, House sponsor Rep. Clancy); sent to Senate Business and Labor Feb. 17, 2026; not considered and returned to Rules March 2, 2026; enacting clause struck and filed as not passed on March 6, 2026.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Vermont S.207 An act relating to prohibiting surveillance pricing
Summary & sources

Adds 9 V.S.A. ch. 118: a person may not use surveillance pricing (setting a price that differs from the standard price using personally identifiable or aggregate consumer information gathered through electronic surveillance technology) to sell consumer products in Vermont, with exceptions for cost-based differences, equal-terms discounts (with notice and affirmative consent for PII), and licensed insurers.

History: Read first time and referred Jan. 6, 2026 (Sen. White et al.) to Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs; no committee action recorded. The Legislature adjourned May 29, 2026 and the 2025-2026 biennium has ended.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Virginia HB 121 Surveillance pricing; prohibited, civil penalties
Summary & sources

Del. Keys-Gamarra's bill prohibits surveillance pricing in a consumer transaction (selling or offering a good/service at a customized price for a specific consumer or group based on personal data collected through electronic surveillance technology, whether collected or purchased), enforced as a Virginia Consumer Protection Act violation.

History: Prefiled Jan. 2, 2026 (offered Jan. 14, 2026), referred to House Labor and Commerce; subcommittee recommended continuing Feb. 5, 2026; 'Continued to next session in Labor and Commerce (Voice Vote)' Feb. 10, 2026. LIS data file shows 'Carried over' (to the 2027 Regular Session). Session adjourned sine die March 14, 2026 (NCSL; reconvened April 22, 2026 for vetoes and special session April 23, 2026 to 06-29 on the budget only).

 Prohibition PendingCarried over to 2027Last action Feb. 10, 2026
Virginia SB 585 Virginia Fair Housing Law, et al.; personalized algorithmic pricing disclosures, prohibitions Applies to: Housing
Summary & sources

Sen. Salim's bill would require owners/landlords/MLSs advertising personalized algorithmic pricing of residential property or rentals to disclose that the price was set by an algorithm using personal data, prohibit discriminatory use of protected-class data in setting rents, ban landlords and MLSs from using software or algorithmic devices that perform a coordinating function (rent-fixing), and authorize AG injunctions/civil penalties and private suits.

History: Prefiled Jan. 14, 2026; referred to Senate General Laws and Technology; subcommittee substitute Jan. 28, 2026; Feb. 4, 2026 'Passed by indefinitely in General Laws and Technology with letter (15-Y 0-N)'; LIS marks it Failed. Session adjourned sine die March 14, 2026 (NCSL; reconvened April 22, 2026 for vetoes and special session April 23, 2026 to 06-29 on the budget only).

 Disclosure Did not pass
Virginia SB 615 Consumer Data Protection Act; online device pricing, prohibition
Summary & sources

Sen. Pekarsky's bill adds to the Consumer Data Protection Act a ban on generating, in whole or part, a price offered to a consumer through the consumer's online device based on (i) device hardware or hardware state, (ii) presence or absence of software, or (iii) precise geolocation data used to infer things about the consumer; with exemptions.

History: Prefiled Jan. 14, 2026; referred to Senate General Laws and Technology; 'Continued to next session in General Laws and Technology (15-Y 0-N)' Jan. 28, 2026. LIS data file shows 'Carried over' (to the 2027 Regular Session). Session adjourned sine die March 14, 2026 (NCSL; reconvened April 22, 2026 for vetoes and special session April 23, 2026 to 06-29 on the budget only).

 Prohibition PendingCarried over to 2027Last action Jan. 28, 2026
Washington HB 2481 / SB 6312 Retail pricing (Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods)
Summary & sources

Rep. Fosse's 'fair pricing and transparency act': larger grocery businesses must post prices, may not set or alter prices based on monitoring/tracking/automated analysis of a consumer's behavior, location, demographics, biometrics or PII, may not use surge pricing, and may not use electronic shelf label systems in 15,000+ sq ft stores until Jan. 1, 2030; Consumer Protection Act enforcement.

History: Introduced Jan. 14, 2026, referred to House Technology, Economic Development & Veterans; committee executive action Jan. 28, 2026 (majority do pass); referred to Appropriations Jan. 30, 2026; no further action. The 2026 session adjourned sine die March 12, 2026 (NCSL), ending the 2025-26 biennium, so unpassed bills are dead.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Wisconsin AB 1186 / SB 1171 Prohibiting retail dynamic price gouging of consumer goods
Summary & sources

Prohibits a retail seller from offering or selling UPC-labeled consumer goods at a price established in whole or part by a computational system that processes consumer data (data-broker data, surveillance- or scraping-derived data, data obtained without consent, or protected-class data) to set a customized price; DATCP/DOJ may seek forfeitures up to $10,000 or injunctions.

History: Introduced March 19, 2026 (Reps. McGuire et al.) and referred to Assembly Consumer Protection; March 23, 2026 'Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1'.

 Prohibition Did not pass
Wisconsin AB 1190 / SB 1140 Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods
Summary & sources

Same as SB 1140: grocery retailers must label personalized algorithmic prices, may not show them on electronic shelf labels, may not vary prices by protected class, and may not buy data-broker data for pricing.

History: Introduced March 19, 2026 (Reps. Palmeri, Clancy, Joers, Madison, Mayadev) and referred to Assembly Consumer Protection; March 23, 2026 'Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1'; cosponsor added March 30, 2026.

 Disclosure Did not pass
Federal (Congress) H.R. 4640 Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act of 2025
Summary & sources

Rep. Casar's bill (with Rep. Tlaib; 43 cosponsors) prohibits surveillance-based price setting (exceptions for cost differences, public group discounts and opt-in loyalty programs) enforced by the FTC, and surveillance-based wage setting by automated decision systems unless they use only local cost-of-living data, enforced by the EEOC; both require published data-accuracy and challenge procedures.

History: Introduced July 23, 2025 (Casar, D-TX-35); referred to House Energy and Commerce and, additionally, Judiciary and Education and Workforce; no further action. 119th Congress ends Jan. 3, 2027; congress.gov status: Introduced.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action July 23, 2025
Federal (Congress) H.R. 4966 / S. 3892 Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2025
Summary & sources

Rep. Tlaib's bill prohibits retail food stores from selling at grossly excessive prices (FTC to define) and from surveillance-based price setting (changing a consumer's price based on personal information, including via facial recognition or electronic shelf labels), with exceptions for cost differences and uniform disclosed discounts, FTC enforcement.

History: Introduced Aug. 12, 2025 (Tlaib, D-MI-12); referred to House Energy and Commerce and, additionally, Judiciary; no further action. 119th Congress ends Jan. 3, 2027; congress.gov status: Introduced.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action Aug. 12, 2025
Federal (Congress) H.R. 8229 Lower Grocery Prices Act
Summary & sources

Rep. Pappas's bill prohibits surveillance-based price setting for food, groceries and agricultural commodities (exceptions: reasonable cost differences, publicly disclosed group discounts, opt-in loyalty discounts using data only to administer the discount), requires publishing data-accuracy and consumer-challenge procedures 180 days before use, and is enforced by the FTC.

History: Introduced April 9, 2026 (Pappas, D-NH-1); referred to House Energy and Commerce and, additionally, Judiciary; no cosponsors as of Sept. 30, 2026. 119th Congress ends Jan. 3, 2027; congress.gov status: Introduced.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action April 9, 2026
Federal (Congress) S. 3387 One Fair Price Act of 2025
Summary & sources

Sen. Gallego's bill makes it unlawful to offer or charge different prices to different consumers for the same or a substantially similar product or service using, informed by, or based on surveillance data, with safe harbors for cost-based differences, bona fide group discounts and opt-in loyalty programs (conditions on disclosure).

History: Introduced Dec. 8, 2025 (Gallego, D-AZ); read twice and referred to Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; no further action. 119th Congress ends Jan. 3, 2027; congress.gov status: Introduced.

 Prohibition PendingIn committeeLast action Dec. 8, 2025

No bills match these filters.

Related bills: algorithmic rent-setting, price-fixing and surveillance wages (31)

These bills deal with pricing algorithms but do not set individual consumer prices from personal data, so they are not counted above. Most target rent-setting software that pools landlords' nonpublic data.

Jurisdiction Bill Topic Status Effective
California AB 325 Cartwright Act: violations
Summary & sources

Adds Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 16729 and 16756.1 making it unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade, and revising pleading standards for such claims.

History: Senate passed 29-9 (Sept. 11, 2025); Assembly concurred 54-18 (Sept. 12, 2025); presented to Governor Sept. 24, 2025; approved by Governor and chaptered Oct. 6, 2025 as Chapter 338, Statutes of 2025.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing EnactedSigned Oct. 6, 2025 Jan. 1, 2026
New Jersey A3497 / S451 Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent (FAIR) Act
Summary & sources

Makes it unlawful under NJ antitrust law for rental property owners to use coordinator services (algorithmic revenue management using competitors' non-public lease data) and for coordinators/persons to facilitate parallel pricing coordination; Attorney General complaint portal.

History: Introduced Jan. 13, 2026; passed Assembly 57-22 and Senate 33-4 on June 30, 2026 (substituted for S451); approved by Gov. Sherrill July 20, 2026 as P.L.2026, c.43.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing EnactedSigned July 20, 2026 July 1, 2027
New York S7882 / A1417-B Prohibits facilitating algorithmic coordination of residential rents (adds GBL §340-b)
Summary & sources

Makes it unlawful to facilitate an agreement among two or more residential rental owners/managers not to compete, including by operating or licensing a software, data-analytics service or algorithmic device that performs a coordinating function, and bars landlords from setting rents on such recommendations (exemptions for government affordable-housing programs and rent-regulated units).

History: Passed Senate June 9, 2025 (40-22); Assembly passed S7882 June 10, 2025 (substituted for A1417B); delivered to Governor Oct. 9, 2025; signed Oct. 16, 2025 as Chapter 437 of the Laws of 2025.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing EnactedSigned Oct. 16, 2025 Dec. 15, 2025
Federal (Congress) S. 232 Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025
Summary & sources

Sen. Klobuchar's bill would prohibit use of pricing algorithms that use nonpublic competitor data, create an antitrust audit tool and transparency requirements, and enforce through the Sherman Act and FTC Act.

History: Introduced Jan. 23, 2025 (Klobuchar; 8 cosponsors); read twice and referred to Senate Judiciary; no other action. 119th Congress ends Jan. 3, 2027; congress.gov status: Introduced.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 23, 2025
Illinois HB 1427 Algorithmics Prohibited-Rent
Summary & sources

Would prohibit landlords from using algorithmic devices that rely on nonpublic competitor rent data to set or adjust residential rents, with carve-outs for monthly trade-association reports and affordable-housing compliance tools.

History: Filed Jan. 16, 2025 (Rep. Olickal; chief sponsor Rep. Jimenez); assigned to Housing Committee Feb. 18, 2025 and again March 12, 2026; re-referred to Rules under Rule 19(a) March 21, 2025 and March 27, 2026; no floor action. 104th GA technically open until Jan 2027.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingStalled in committeeLast action March 27, 2026
Michigan HB 4538 Housing: landlord and tenants; use of certain software to share pricing information and set rent rates; prohibit
Summary & sources

Would prohibit use of rent-setting software that shares pricing information among landlords.

History: Introduced June 3, 2025 (Rep. Rheingans); discharged and re-referred between committees; most recent action March 19, 2026 re-referral to Communications and Technology. Not passed the House.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action March 19, 2026
New Jersey A2299 Prohibits use and sale of algorithmic devices for setting rent price or occupancy of residential dwelling units
Summary & sources

Prohibits sale/licensing and landlord use of algorithmic rent-setting devices; Attorney General may seek damages, injunctions, restitution and up to $1,000 per violation (Assemblywomen Peterpaul, Donlon, Morales).

History: Introduced Jan. 13, 2026; referred to Assembly Housing Committee; no further action recorded (LegiScan; carry-over companion A4916 from 2024). NJ's 2026-2027 session began Jan. 13, 2026 and remains active through Jan 2028; the 2024-2025 session ended Jan 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 13, 2026
New Jersey A3326 Makes use of algorithmic systems to influence price and supply of residential rental units unlawful
Summary & sources

Rental-market algorithmic-coordination ban under the NJ Antitrust Act (Assemblywoman Brennan, Assemblyman Rodriguez); same-as S451; superseded in practice by enacted A3497.

History: Introduced Jan. 13, 2026; referred to Assembly Housing Committee; no further action recorded (LegiScan). Formally still pending in an active session but its Senate twin S451 was substituted by the enacted A3497 (P.L.2026, c.43). NJ's 2026-2027 session began Jan. 13, 2026 and remains active through Jan 2028; the 2024-2025 session ended Jan 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 13, 2026
New Jersey A3989 Restricts use and sale of algorithmic devices for establishing rent price or occupancy of residential property
Summary & sources

Makes it unlawful for a landlord to use an algorithmic device (computing non-public competitor data on local/regional rents or occupancy) when setting rents or occupancy, and restricts selling such devices (Assemblymen Bhalla, Brennan).

History: Introduced Jan. 13, 2026; referred to Assembly Housing Committee; no further action recorded (LegiScan). Subject area overtaken by enacted A3497 (P.L.2026, c.43). NJ's 2026-2027 session began Jan. 13, 2026 and remains active through Jan 2028; the 2024-2025 session ended Jan 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 13, 2026
New York A11490 Prohibits dynamic pricing, algorithm or automated pricing tools in the sale or rental of residential dwelling units (adds RPL §§442-m, 442-n)
Summary & sources

Bars landlords, brokers and real-estate platforms from using any dynamic pricing system, algorithm or automated pricing tool (adjusting asking/rent price based on occupancy, competitor pricing, demand, time on market or a prospective tenant's/buyer's personal data) for residential units, and bars owners from listing rentals on online auction platforms in which they hold an interest.

History: Introduced by the Rules Committee (Rosenthal) and referred to Housing May 28, 2026; no further action; no Senate same-as.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action May 28, 2026
New York S1573 Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act (adds RPL §222-a)
Summary & sources

Prohibits collecting pricing, supply and lease-renewal data from multiple rental owners for algorithmic analysis and price recommendations and bars landlords from using such coordinating functions to inflate rents or reduce supply.

History: Sponsor Krueger (co-sponsor Cleare); referred to Judiciary Jan. 10, 2025, re-referred Jan. 7, 2026; no further action. Reintroduction of S9609 (2023-2024).

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 7, 2026
New York S2697 / S9700 / A4991 Prohibits landlord use of an algorithmic device to determine residential rent (adds RPL §222-a)
Summary & sources

Prohibits landlords from using algorithmic devices that use, incorporate or were trained with nonpublic competitor data to set residential rent, treating violations as deceptive practices (exempts anonymized trade-association reports and affordable-housing program tools).

History: Referred to Judiciary Jan. 22, 2025; no further action shown on nysenate.gov.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 22, 2025
New York S8872 / A9641 Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting (Labor Law Art. 20-D, §§750-755)
Summary & sources

Prohibits algorithmic wage-setting based on employee surveillance data, permits wages based on task-specific data or labor-cost differences with advance disclosure; civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and a private right of action ($3,000 statutory damages).

History: Sen. May; referred to Labor Jan. 13, 2026 (A9641, Torres, referred to Labor Jan. 21, 2026); no further action.

 Surveillance wages PendingIn committeeLast action Jan. 13, 2026
New York S9132 / A9638 Prohibits surveillance wages (Labor Law §194-c)
Summary & sources

Prohibits employers from using algorithms combined with personal or behavioral data to set or recommend employee compensation; AG and private civil actions, damages of at least $3,000 per violation, treble damages for willful violations.

History: Sen. Kristen Gonzalez; referred to Labor Feb. 5, 2026 (A9638, Gallagher, referred to Labor Jan. 21, 2026); no further action.

 Surveillance wages PendingIn committeeLast action Feb. 5, 2026
Ohio SB 79 / HB 665 Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Summary & sources

Bars use or distribution of a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained on nonpublic competitor data (rebuttable presumption of conspiracy, joint and several liability for distributors) and requires businesses with at least $5 million in gross receipts to disclose to customers and workers that a price or commercial term is set or recommended by a pricing algorithm, including whether it sets different prices for different customers (violation = unfair/deceptive act under R.C. 1345.02).

History: Introduced in the Senate Feb. 4, 2025 (Sens. Blessing and Blackshear); referred Feb. 12, 2025 to Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee; Status tab shows no later action. The 136th General Assembly is still in session (Ohio is full-time).

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingIn committeeLast action Feb. 12, 2025
Virginia HB 1252 Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; algorithmic pricing device use by certain landlords
Summary & sources

Requires landlords owning more than 10 units that use an algorithmic pricing device (software using algorithms/ML to generate or recommend rents) to disclose that use in writing, give a plain-language summary of the factors on request, and provide human review of algorithm-driven rent determinations; AG injunction and civil penalties.

History: Prefiled Jan. 14, 2026 (Del. Anthony); House General Laws subcommittee recommended continuing to 2027 on Jan. 29, 2026; full committee 'Continued to 2027' Feb. 3, 2026. LIS data file shows 'Carried over' (continued from last session, July 21, 2026), so it can be taken up again in the 2027 Regular Session. Session adjourned sine die March 14, 2026 (NCSL; reconvened April 22, 2026 for vetoes and special session April 23, 2026 to 06-29 on the budget only).

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing PendingCarried over to 2027Last action Feb. 3, 2026
Arizona HB 2490 Rental price fixing; algorithmic pricing
Summary & sources

Would make it an unlawful practice (AG-enforced, rebuttable presumption of price-fixing) for landlords or coordinators to use an algorithmic device built on nonpublic competitor data to set rent or lease terms; exempts government-sponsored housing, landlords with 4 or fewer units, dormitories and hotels.

History: Introduced Jan. 20, 2026 (Rep. De Los Santos); assigned to House Commerce and Rules; read second time Jan. 21, 2026; no hearing or vote. Legislature adjourned sine die June 13, 2026 without passage.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
California SB 295 California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025
Summary & sources

Would have regulated the use and distribution of pricing algorithms that facilitate collusion among competitors (Sens. Hurtado and Cortese).

History: Passed Senate (engrossed June 3, 2025); on Assembly floor the bill 'refused passage' on Sept. 13, 2025 (13 ayes, 24 noes) and reconsideration was granted; no further action recorded; session ended Aug. 31, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
California SB 384 Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act: prohibition on certain price-setting algorithm uses
Summary & sources

Would have prohibited certain uses of price-setting algorithms (Bus. & Prof. Code, new Chapter 40, Division 8) as algorithmic price fixing (Sen. Wahab).

History: Passed Senate 28-10 on June 3, 2025; Assembly committees (Judiciary, Privacy & Consumer Protection) passed it; placed on Assembly Appropriations suspense file and 'held in committee and under submission' on Aug. 29, 2025. No action recorded in 2026; the 2025-26 session's last day to pass bills was Aug. 31, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
California SB 52 Housing rental terms: algorithmic devices
Summary & sources

Would have restricted landlords' use of algorithmic devices/software in setting rents and rental terms (Sen. Perez).

History: Passed Senate 28-9 on June 2, 2025; Assembly committees passed it; placed on Assembly Appropriations suspense file and 'held in committee and under submission' Aug. 29, 2025; no further action recorded before the Aug. 31, 2026 end-of-session deadline.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Georgia SB 559 'Fair Business Practices Act of 1975'; prohibition on facilitating noncompete agreements between residential rental property owners or managers
Summary & sources

Would amend the Fair Business Practices Act to bar facilitating non-competition agreements among residential rental owners/managers (including through algorithms) and bar setting rents or lease terms based on algorithmic-device recommendations.

History: Hopper Feb. 24, 2026; read and referred to Senate committee Feb. 25, 2026; no further action; Sine Die April 2, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Hawaii HB 2611 Relating to Antitrust
Summary & sources

Would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii's rental market and require an Attorney General public-education program, with fines and penalties.

History: Introduced Jan. 28, 2026; referred to HSG/JHA/FIN; House Housing committee deferred the measure Feb. 11, 2026; session ended ~May 8, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Hawaii HB 831 Relating to Antitrust
Summary & sources

Would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii's rental market and require an Attorney General public-education program (House companion to SB 157).

History: Introduced Jan. 23, 2025; referred to CPC/JHA/FIN; no hearing recorded; superseded by 2026's HB 2611 (same sponsors/title). Session ended ~May 8, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Hawaii SB 157 Relating to Antitrust
Summary & sources

Would prohibit algorithmic price-setting (shared rent-setting software) in Hawaii's rental market, with fines/penalties and an Attorney General public-education program.

History: Passed Senate 25-0 (as SD2) on March 4, 2025; received in House and referred to CPC/JHA/FIN March 6, 2025; no House action recorded. Hawaii adjourned the 2026 session (end of the 2025-26 biennium) on or about May 8, 2026 without passage.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Idaho H 203 Idaho Competition Act - Amends and adds to existing law to provide for monopsonies and to establish provisions regarding the prohibition of pricing algorithms.
Summary & sources

Idaho Competition Act bill (House State Affairs Committee) covering monopsonies and pricing algorithms.

History: Introduced Feb. 10, 2025 and referred to the House Business Committee Feb. 11, 2025; no later action. Not passed in the 2025 session.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Kentucky HB 201 AN ACT relating to the use of algorithmic devices in setting the amount of rent to be charged to a residential tenant
Summary & sources

Would make it an unfair/deceptive practice and illegal restraint of trade for a landlord to employ, use or rely on an algorithmic device in setting residential rent (Rep. N. Kulkarni).

History: Introduced in House Jan. 7, 2026; referred to House Judiciary Jan. 14, 2026; no further action. Kentucky's 2026 Regular Session adjourned sine die April 15, 2026; bills not passed by both chambers died.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Maryland HB 434 Residential Leases - Use of Algorithmic Device by Landlord to Determine Rent, Occupancy, and Lease Terms - Prohibition
Summary & sources

Would prohibit landlords from using algorithmic devices to set rent, occupancy or lease terms for residential units; violations unfair or deceptive trade practices (Dels. Palakovich Carr and Stewart; re-introduction of 2025's HB 817).

History: First reading and referral to House Economic Matters Jan. 22, 2026; hearing held Feb. 19, 2026; no further action recorded. Maryland's 2026 Regular Session ran Jan. 14, 2026 to April 13, 2026 (a special session was held Aug 3-4, 2026, unrelated).

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
New Hampshire HB 1612-FN Relative to the use of price-fixing websites, algorithms, or other software by landlords
Summary & sources

Would make landlords' use of price-fixing websites, algorithms or other software a violation of the Consumer Protection Act (Reps. Read, Wheeler, D. Paige, Hegner).

History: Introduced Jan. 7, 2026, referred to House Housing; public hearing and executive session Jan. 20, 2026; majority Inexpedient to Legislate (10-8), minority Ought to Pass; House voted 198-147 on Feb. 5, 2026 to lay it on the table. The state record (as mirrored by NH Liberty Alliance and LegiScan) then shows 'Died on Table, Session ended 08/19/2026'.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
New Hampshire HB 558 Creating a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit and prohibiting landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates
Summary & sources

Would create county rent registries and prohibit landlords from using algorithms or software to set rent (Reps. Read, Newell, Seibert, Staub, Veilleux).

History: Introduced Jan. 14, 2025, referred to House Housing; committee reported Inexpedient to Legislate (10-8) Feb. 14, 2025 with minority Ought to Pass with amendment; House adopted Inexpedient to Legislate by voice vote March 20, 2025 (per LegiScan).

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Rhode Island H 7129 Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (algorithmic rent-setting software) [LC3776/1]
Summary & sources

Amends the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to prohibit algorithmic rent-setting software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to determine rental prices or occupancy levels.

History: Introduced Jan. 15, 2026 and referred to House Judiciary; hearing scheduled March 18, 2026; withdrawn at sponsor's request March 14, 2026.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass
Rhode Island S 2266 Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (algorithmic device determination of rent) [LC4268/1]
Summary & sources

Adds R.I. Gen. Laws 34-18-63 (effective Jan. 1, 2027): landlords may not use an algorithmic device that uses or was trained on nonpublic competitor data to determine rent, nor use an algorithmic device to determine rent changes for renewals or adjustments.

History: Introduced Jan. 23, 2026 (Sen. Mack and 8 others), referred to Senate Housing and Municipal Government; heard May 7, 2026 and held for further study; no further action.

 Algorithmic rent-setting / price-fixing Did not pass

How we built this tracker

This tracker covers state, District of Columbia and federal bills from the 2025 and 2026 sessions that would regulate surveillance pricing: setting or changing an individual consumer's price based on their personal data, through a ban, a disclosure requirement, an opt-out right or a study. Bills that only limit surge or time-based price changes, price gouging or electronic shelf labels, with no personal-data element, are not included. City ordinances are not tracked.

Each entry was checked on Sept. 30, 2026 against the legislature's bill page or the enacted text where we could reach it, otherwise against LegiScan and published reporting. Sources are listed with every entry. “Did not pass” means the session ended without passage or the bill was vetoed; “Pending” means the bill can still move in its current session, including bills carried over to 2027.

Earlier versions of this page, starting with the first version in April 2026, combined a short curated list with automated keyword matches from our bill database. On Sept. 30, 2026 we rebuilt it by hand: every bill was re-verified, companion bills were merged, bills that do not regulate consumer prices were removed, and rent-setting and wage bills were moved to Related bills.

AI Disclosure Tracker Healthcare AI Tracker Surveillance Pricing Guide All 50 States

Frequently asked questions

What is surveillance pricing?

Surveillance pricing (sometimes called personalized algorithmic pricing) is setting an individual consumer's price from personal data such as browsing or purchase history, location or device. It differs from dynamic or surge pricing, where a price changes for everyone based on time or demand. The Federal Trade Commission opened a study of the practice in July 2024.

Which states have enacted surveillance pricing laws?

As of Sept. 30, 2026, four states have enacted surveillance pricing laws: New York (Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, in effect since July 8, 2025), Maryland (Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, HB 895, effective Oct. 1, 2026), Connecticut (Public Act 26-130, HB 5563, effective July 1, 2027) and New Jersey (Fair Price Protection Act, A4085, effective Aug. 1, 2027). New York's law requires a disclosure; the Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey laws ban the practice in the sectors they cover. See the table of enacted laws for scope and sources.

How many surveillance pricing bills are there?

This tracker lists 72 bills in 31 states, the District of Columbia and Congress from the 2025 and 2026 sessions, with companion bills counted once. Of these, 4 were enacted, 7 more passed at least one chamber, 25 are still pending and 36 did not pass.

What is personalized pricing?

Personalized pricing means charging different customers different prices for the same product based on information about each customer. Surveillance pricing is personalized pricing that relies on personal data collected about the shopper, such as browsing or purchase history, location or device. Loyalty discounts and coupons are a familiar, open form of personalized pricing; most state bills exempt them.

Is surveillance pricing legal?

In most states, yes: no law specifically addresses it. As of Sept. 30, 2026, four states have enacted surveillance pricing laws: New York (Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, in effect since July 8, 2025), Maryland (Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, HB 895, effective Oct. 1, 2026), Connecticut (Public Act 26-130, HB 5563, effective July 1, 2027) and New Jersey (Fair Price Protection Act, A4085, effective Aug. 1, 2027). New York's law requires a disclosure; the Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey laws ban the practice in the sectors they cover.

Does this tracker include rent-setting algorithm bills?

Bills that regulate algorithmic rent-setting or price-fixing with competitors' data, and bills on surveillance-based wage setting, are listed separately under Related bills. They do not regulate individual consumer prices, so they are not counted in the totals above.

Last verified Sept. 30, 2026. Spotted an error or a bill we missed? Send a correction.

All trackers →
AI Disclosure Tracker Transparency rules: watermarks, chatbot disclosure, synthetic media labels. Companion Chatbot Tracker Companion AI rules: disclosure, crisis protocols, minor safety. AI Mental Health Tracker Therapy chatbot bans, clinician oversight and mental health AI disclosure.