Algorithmic pricing regulation targets the use of AI and automated systems to set prices for goods, services, housing, and other markets. Legislatures are scrutinizing AI-driven dynamic pricing, personalized pricing, and algorithmic collusion where competing companies use shared pricing algorithms that may facilitate anti-competitive behavior.
Key regulatory concerns include rent-setting algorithms used by property management platforms, AI-driven surge pricing in consumer markets, price discrimination based on consumer profiling, and antitrust implications of algorithmic price coordination among competitors.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's S 2697 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring a landlord from using or relying on an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data to set initial rent or any rent change on renewal, or causing another to do so. A violation would be a deceptive act or practice under General Business Law § 349, with the penalties of Article 22-A. Referred to Judiciary January 22, 2025; it has not passed either chamber.
Residential Leases - Use of Algorithmic Device by Landlord to Determine Rent, Occupancy, and Lease Terms - Prohibition
Maryland's HB 434 (2026, first reader text) would have added Real Property section 8-222 barring a landlord from using, relying on, or causing another to use an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data to set rent (including renewal changes), lease renewal terms, occupancy levels or other lease terms. A violation would be an unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practice. It had a House Economic Matters hearing set for February 19, 2026 and died when the 2026 session ended.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's HB 831 (2025) would have made it unlawful for rental property owners to use a 'coordinator', a software or data analytics service whose coordinating function collects price, supply or lease-date data from two or more owners, analyzes it through computation (including training an algorithm) and recommends rents, lease renewal terms or occupancy levels; for coordinators to facilitate agreements among owners that restrict competition or for owners to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. It was referred to CPC, JHA and FIN in January 2025, carried over to 2026 on December 8, 2025 and was not enacted.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's House Bill 2611 (2026) would have made it unlawful for a software or data analytics service to collect rent, supply or lease-date data from two or more landlords, process it with computation (including to train an algorithm) and recommend rents, lease terms or occupancy levels, and for two or more landlords to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. It would have amended the penalty section with fines up to $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for entities. HSG deferred it February 11, 2026 and it was not enacted.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's SB 6312, the Senate companion to HB 2481 (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It got no committee action on February 4, 2026 and died at adjournment.
Provides relative to prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination
Louisiana's HB471 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. It defines surveillance data, behaviors, biometrics and automated decision systems, and exempts cost-justified price differences, certain equal-terms discounts and refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act consumer report. It was considered in House Commerce April 22, 2026 and died. A Senate bill on the same subject, SB362, also died.
Relating to the deceptive trade practice of failure to disclose information regarding the use of artificial intelligence system or algorithmic pricing systems for setting of price.
Texas's SB 2567 (West) would amend the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Bus. & Com. Code 17.45 and 17.46) to add 'failure to disclose information regarding use of artificial intelligence system, or algorithmic pricing systems for setting of price' to the list of false, misleading or deceptive acts. Filed March 13, 2025; referred to the Senate Business & Commerce Committee April 3, 2025; it did not advance and died when the 2025 session ended.
Prohibits use of algorithm or artificial intelligence to set residential rental amounts and prohibits landlord price fixing of residential rents. Violations constitute a deceptive trade practice and violators are subject to civil suit.
Rhode Island S 2892 (2024), as introduced on March 22, 2024, would add section 34-18-15.1 barring any landlord or person from using an algorithm, commercial computer program or digital technology, including AI, to set or determine residential rent. It would also bar sharing rental information with intent to stabilize rents across owners. Violations would be deceptive trade practices, and aggrieved persons could seek injunctions, damages and treble damages. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Rental price fixing; algorithmic pricing
Arizona's HB 2490 (2026) would have barred a coordinator or a residential landlord from using an algorithmic device that uses nonpublic competitor data to perform a coordinating function in order to set or adjust rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels or to facilitate an agreement not to compete. Use in violation would, in specified circumstances, create a rebuttable presumption of a contract or conspiracy to restrain trade. It was held in House committees with no action and died when the 2026 session ended June 13, 2026.
Technology; Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act; personalized algorithmic pricing; consumer data; food retailers; effective date.
Oklahoma's HB 3959 (2026), as introduced, would have created the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Predatory Pricing Act. Per its title, it would require disclosure of personalized algorithmic pricing by food retail establishments, bar electronic shelving labels for large food retailers and for personalized or surveillance pricing, and bar use of protected class data in pricing. It was referred to committee February 4, 2026 and died when the session ended May 14, 2026.
Prohibits a person or entity from knowingly or with reckless disregard facilitate an agreement between or among two or more residential rental property owners or managers to not compete with respect to residential rental dwelling units, including by operating or licensing a software, data analytics…
New York's S 7882 adds General Business Law § 340-b to the article holding the state's antitrust law (§ 340). It is unlawful to knowingly or with reckless disregard facilitate an agreement among two or more residential landlords or managers not to compete, including by operating or licensing software that pools rent, supply or lease data from unaffiliated owners and recommends rents or lease terms. A landlord that sets rents or lease terms on such recommendations, knowingly or with reckless disregard, makes an unlawful agreement. Tools for rent-regulation or government affordable-housing limits are excluded. Signed October 16, 2025 (Chapter 437); effective December 15, 2025.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47 and Title 53, relative to consumer protection.
SB1998 requires establishments, potentially beyond food retail, to display prices using physical tags or signs and prohibits personalized algorithmic pricing.
AN ACT relating to the use of algorithmic devices in setting the amount of rent to be charged to a residential tenant.
Kentucky's HB 201 (2026 session) would have barred a landlord from employing, using or relying on an 'algorithmic device', or causing another person to, in setting residential rent. An algorithmic device is a device using algorithms to perform calculations of data that advises a landlord on rent, including products incorporating one, but not a product designed internally and used exclusively by a landlord or its affiliates. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive practice under KRS 367.170 enforced by the Attorney General. Referred to House Judiciary January 14, 2026; died when the session ended.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's SB 1140 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs Committee; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
ALGORITHMICS PROHIBITED-RENT
Illinois's HB 5871 (103rd General Assembly) would have created the Prohibition of Algorithmics in Rent Act. In setting residential rent, including a change on renewal, a landlord could not use or rely on, or cause another to use, an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. It was not passed before the 103rd General Assembly ended (Session Sine Die, January 7, 2025).
Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act: prohibition on certain price-setting algorithm uses.
California's SB 384 (2025-26 Regular Session), the Preventing Algorithmic Price Fixing Act, would have barred selling, licensing, providing or using a price-setting algorithm with the intent or reasonable expectation that 2 or more competitors in the same market use it, if the person knows or should know it processes nonpublic data to set a price, supply level, rent or occupancy level. Civil penalty up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 28-10; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 29, 2025 and was not passed before the session ended.
Housing rental terms: algorithmic devices.
California's SB 52 (2025-26 Regular Session) would have made it unlawful to sell, license or provide a rental pricing algorithm to 2 or more persons expecting it to be used to set residential rental terms, to use one to recommend terms if the person knew or should have known it would be used by 2 or more landlords in the same or a related market, or to set terms based on one that processes nonpublic competitor data, as specified. The Senate passed it 28-9 on June 2, 2025; it was held in Assembly Appropriations on August 29, 2025 and was not passed before the session ended.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's SB1807 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: HB 1468. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Assigned to General Subcommittee of Senate Commerce and Labor Committee (April 7, 2026).
Trade Practices; surveillance based price discrimination and surveillance based wage discrimination; prohibit
Georgia's SB 164 would add Article 37 to Title 10, Chapter 1, prohibiting 'surveillance based price discrimination' and 'surveillance based wage discrimination', meaning use of an automated decision system to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Defined exceptions would apply, such as cost-based price differences. According to its title, it would provide civil penalties and enforcement. The bill was read and referred on February 13, 2025 and died when the session ended.
ALGORITHMIC PRICE TRANSPARENCY
Illinois's HB 4248, as the Senate amended it (Senate Floor Amendment 1), would create the Protection from Surveillance Pricing Act, banning surveillance pricing: customized prices for a consumer or group based on personal data. The House passed an earlier version 78-19 on May 22, 2026; the Senate passed it as amended 41-16 on May 31, 2026. The House has not concurred and re-referred it to the Rules Committee July 1, 2026, so it has not gone to the Governor.
A bill for an act prohibiting personalized algorithmic pricing and surveillance pricing at certain food retail establishments, and providing civil penalties.
Iowa's SF 2278 (as introduced) would add Code chapter 554J for large food retail stores. Such a store using personalized algorithmic pricing based on a particular consumer's data would have to show "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." Stores could not use electronic shelf labels, collect data of minors under 17 or use it for targeted ads or personalized pricing, or use protected class data in pricing. Civil penalty up to $7,500 per violation. Introduced February 11, 2026; it died in committee when the 2026 session ended.
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act; requires the disclosure of algorithmically set prices.
New York's A 6765-A (the "Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act") would add General Business Law § 349-a, requiring anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on an individual's consumer data to state "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA", and § 396 would bar using protected class data in setting prices. Attorney General penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Would take effect on the 60th day after it becomes law. On the Assembly floor calendar (Cal. 173, January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's A 4991 would add Real Property Law § 222-a prohibiting a landlord, when setting rent for residential premises, from using or relying on an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be a deceptive act or practice under General Business Law § 349, with the remedies of GBL Article 22-A. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after becoming law and apply to rental agreements executed on or after then. Referred to Housing February 10, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits the use of electronic shelving labels, digital shelf display technology, and personalized algorithmic pricing in food retail establishments and drug retail establishments; provides injunctive relief, civil penalties, and a private right of action.
New York's S 8616-B, the Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act, would add General Business Law § 349-a-1. Food and drug retail establishments could not use electronic shelving labels or digital shelf displays, could not engage in surveillance pricing (pricing set completely or in part by an algorithm that uses personal data), and could not use protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties up to $10,000 per violation. Passed the Senate May 13, 2026 and, as amended, June 4, 2026 (50-10); on June 5 the Assembly substituted it for A9396-B on its third-reading calendar. No Assembly vote is shown.
Provides that surveillance-based price discrimination is an unfair or deceptive trade practice or act. (8/1/26)
Louisiana's SB362 would have made 'surveillance-based price discrimination' an unfair or deceptive trade practice, so that no person could engage in it. The bill defines surveillance data, behaviors and biometrics, mentions automated decision systems, and exempts cost-based price differences, equal-terms discounts and credit refusals based on a Fair Credit Reporting Act report. It was considered in committee April 22, 2026 and died.
Relating To Antitrust.
Hawaii's Senate Bill 157 (2025), as amended in SD 2, would have made it unlawful for a software or data analytics service to collect rent, supply or lease-date data from two or more landlords, process it with computation (including to train an algorithm) and recommend rents, and for two or more landlords to engage in consciously parallel pricing coordination. Penalties would have reached $100,000 for individuals and $1,000,000 for entities. It passed the Senate March 4, 2025, was carried over to 2026 and not enacted. It stated a July 1, 2050 effective date.
Prohibits the use of algorithmic pricing by landlords to determine the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant.
Rhode Island S 2266 (2026), as introduced on January 23, 2026, would add section 34-18-63. Effective January 1, 2027, landlords and their agents could not use an algorithmic device that uses or was trained on nonpublic competitor data to determine or suggest rent, or use an algorithmic device to set rent changes for renewals or existing tenants. Violations would be deceptive trade practices. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's S3952, the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores with 50 or fewer employees from surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing and personalized pricing of groceries, and require them to post sale prices clearly. Stores of 15,000 square feet or more could not use electronic shelf labels until four years after the effective date. Introduced March 16, 2026.
Prohibits use and sale of algorithmic devices for setting rent price or occupancy of residential dwelling units.
New Jersey's A2299 would make it unlawful to sell, license or provide landlords with an 'algorithmic device' that sets or recommends rents or occupancy rates for residential units, and unlawful for landlords to use one. The Attorney General could sue for damages, injunctions and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.
Restricts use and sale of algorithmic devices for establishing rent price or occupancy of residential property.
New Jersey's A3989 would make it unlawful to sell, license or provide landlords with an 'algorithmic device' that sets or recommends rents or occupancy rates for residential units, and unlawful for landlords to use one. A violation would be a per se violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act.
Makes use of algorithmic systems to influence price and supply of residential rental units unlawful.
New Jersey's A3326 would make it unlawful, and a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, for a rental property owner to subscribe to or pay a 'coordinator' that collects pricing, supply or lease-date data from two or more owners and recommends rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels. It would also bar coordinators from facilitating agreements that restrict competition for residential units.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's SB 79 would bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, presume an unlawful agreement in certain cases, and require businesses with $5 million or more in gross receipts to disclose algorithmic pricing, with disclosure violations treated as unfair or deceptive acts. Introduced February 4, 2025; referred to the Senate Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee February 12, 2025; it has not passed.
In preliminary provisions, providing for algorithmic pricing transparency and fairness; and imposing duties on the Office of Attorney General and Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Pennsylvania's HB 1779 would require a clear disclosure, 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.', on advertised personalized algorithmic prices, and bar using protected class data to set prices differently. The Attorney General could seek injunctions and courts could impose up to $1,000 per violation. Referred to the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee August 4, 2025; it has not passed.
Establishes "Fair Pricing and Transparency Act."
New Jersey's A4742 (Wainstein, Rodriguez, Walker), the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, would bar retail food stores from using surveillance-based price discrimination, dynamic pricing, or personalized pricing (personalized pricing means prices set using automated systems, AI, machine learning, or algorithms relying on consumer or inferred data) on groceries and other foodstuffs. Retail establishments with more than 50 employees would not be covered. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee; identical Senate bill S3952.
Regulate the use of pricing algorithms
Ohio's HB 665 (as introduced) would amend Ohio's antitrust law (R.C. Chapter 1331) to bar using or distributing a pricing algorithm, including one derived from machine learning or AI, that uses or is trained with nonpublic competitor data, and would presume an illegal agreement in certain cases where the same algorithm is distributed to or used by others in the same or a related market. Enterprises with $5 million or more in gross receipts would have to disclose algorithmic pricing to customers, employees and contractors. Introduced January 29, 2026 and referred February 4, 2026 to the House Technology and Innovation Committee; it has not passed either house.
Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; algorithmic pricing device use by certain landlords.
Virginia's HB 1252 (as introduced) would add Code § 55.1-1204.2. A landlord with more than 10 rental dwelling units (or more than a 10 percent interest in more than 10) who uses an algorithmic pricing device to set advertised, renewal or offered rent would have to disclose that use in writing, give a plain-language summary of factors on request, and allow human review of rent determinations. The Attorney General could seek an injunction and civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation. Continued to 2027 in the House General Laws Committee on February 3, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Prohibits certain businesses from using dynamic, surveillance, or personalized algorithmic pricing when selling groceries to consumers.
New Jersey's S 3732 would make it an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act for a retail food store or third-party grocery delivery platform to use dynamic pricing, surveillance pricing or personalized algorithmic pricing when selling groceries, in person or online. Discounts and loyalty benefits based on past purchases would still be allowed. Introduced March 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee; it has not passed either house.
Prohibits dynamic pricing, algorithm or automated pricing tools in the sale or rental of any residential dwelling unit
New York's A 11490 would add Real Property Law sections 442-m and 442-n. No landlord, real estate broker, salesperson or real estate platform could use a dynamic pricing system, algorithm or automated pricing tool for the listing, advertisement, sale or rental of a residential dwelling unit, and owners could not offer rental units on an online real estate auction platform in which they or a family member hold an ownership interest. Introduced May 28, 2026 by the Rules Committee (at the request of Assemblymember Rosenthal) and referred to the Housing Committee; not passed.
Prohibits the use of an algorithmic device by a landlord for the purpose of determining the amount of rent to charge a residential tenant; declares that such use is an unfair or deceptive trade practice.
New York's S 9700 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring a landlord from employing, using or relying on an algorithmic device that was trained with or incorporates nonpublic competitor data when setting residential rent, including changes on renewal. A violation would be a deceptive act under General Business Law § 349. Referred to Judiciary April 2, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 5323 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Re-referred to the House Rules Committee March 27, 2026.
Cartwright Act: violations.
California's AB 325 amends the Cartwright Act, the state antitrust law. It is unlawful to use or distribute a common pricing algorithm (any methodology, including software, used by two or more persons that uses competitor data to recommend, align, stabilize, set or otherwise influence a price or commercial term) as part of a contract, combination or conspiracy to restrain trade, or while coercing another person to adopt a price or term it recommends. A Cartwright Act complaint need only plausibly allege an agreement, without excluding independent action. Signed October 6, 2025 (Chapter 338); effective January 1, 2026.
Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025
The federal S 232 (Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025) would make it unlawful to use or distribute a pricing algorithm that uses or was trained with nonpublic competitor data, with federal civil penalties. It would also require audit reports on request and disclosures of algorithmic pricing by companies with $5 million or more in revenue. Read twice and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 23, 2025; it has not passed either house.
SURVEILLANCE-BASED PRICING
Illinois's HB 4985 would create the Surveillance-Based Price Discrimination Act, barring a person from using surveillance data as part of an automated decision system to inform the individualized price charged to a consumer. The Attorney General and aggrieved consumers could sue. Filed February 4, 2026; assigned to the Consumer Protection Committee March 18 and re-referred to the Rules Committee March 27, 2026; it has not passed either house.
Algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
Wisconsin's AB 1190 would restrict grocery retailers' use of personalized algorithmic pricing on essential consumer goods: required disclosure on each such price, no electronic display of those prices in grocery stores of 15,000+ square feet, no pricing that varies by protected traits, and no buying consumer data from data brokers for pricing. Introduced March 19, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection; failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1 on March 23, 2026, so it did not pass.
Virginia Fair Housing Law, et al.; personalized algorithmic pricing disclosures, prohibitions.
Virginia's SB 585 as introduced would require disclosure of personalized algorithmic pricing by residential property owners, landlords and multiple listing services, ban using protected class data to set housing prices, and bar landlords from using coordinating algorithmic software to set rents or facilitate agreements not to compete. Prefiled January 14, 2026; the Senate General Laws and Technology Committee passed it by indefinitely (15-0) February 4, 2026, so it did not pass.
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.
New Hampshire's HB 558 would create a public county registry of monthly rents kept by registers of deeds, require landlords to file rent lists and a notarized affidavit that they used no algorithm or software to set rents, and prohibit landlords from using any algorithm or software to determine rental rates. The House Housing Committee recommended Inexpedient to Legislate (10-8) and the House adopted that on March 20, 2025, so the bill did not pass.
Makes use of algorithmic systems to influence price and supply of residential rental units unlawful.
New Jersey's FAIR Act (Forbidding the Algorithmic Inflation of Rent) makes it unlawful, and a violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act, to use rent-pricing software to coordinate residential rents. It bars owners from paying for or subscribing to a coordinator's services, bars coordinators from facilitating restraints on competition, and bars parallel pricing coordination. Enacted through the identical A3497, approved July 20, 2026 (P.L.2026, c.43); takes effect July 1, 2027.
Amends the residential landlord and tenant act to prohibit the use of algorithmic renting-setting software that relies on nonpublic competitor data to determine rental prices or occupancy levels for residential dwelling units in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island's H 7129 would have added R.I. Gen. Laws § 34-18-63 making it unlawful for any person to use a revenue management device (rent-optimization software that uses nonpublic competitor data) or nonpublic competitor data to set, recommend or determine rents or occupancy levels for residential units. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive trade practice enforceable by the attorney general. Introduced January 15, 2026 and referred to House Judiciary; withdrawn at the sponsor's request, recorded 03/14/2026 (the status report also shows 03/18/2026 in parentheses).
Prohibits the collecting of information of historical or contemporaneous prices, supply levels, or lease or rental contract termination and renewal dates of residential dwelling units from two or more rental property owners for purposes of analyzing or processing of such information using an…
New York's S 1573 would add Real Property Law § 222-a barring owners of four or more residential units from paying for a coordinator's services (software or analytics that collects data from two or more owners and recommends rents, renewal terms or occupancy levels). Coordinators could not facilitate agreements among owners not to compete. The Attorney General could sue for an injunction and monetary penalties; arbitration clauses would be unenforceable. Referred to Judiciary January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and surge pricing for retail goods.
Washington's HB 2481, the fair pricing and transparency act (2026 session), would have barred non-small businesses selling grocery products from surveillance-based price discrimination (prices set from monitoring or automated analysis of a consumer's personal data) and from surge pricing based on real-time or predicted demand; 'algorithm' is defined to include AI. It would also have barred electronic shelf labels in stores of 15,000 square feet or more until January 1, 2030; violations would be Consumer Protection Act violations. It was heard in House Appropriations on February 5, 2026 and died at adjournment.
ALGORITHMICS PROHIBITED-RENT
Illinois's HB 1427 (104th General Assembly) would create the Prohibition of Algorithmics in Rent Act. In setting residential rent, including renewal changes, a landlord could not use, or cause another to use, an algorithmic device that uses, incorporates or was trained with nonpublic competitor data. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Re-referred to Rules March 27, 2026.
An Act Concerning Consumer Privacy And Protection.
Connecticut's Public Act 26-64 (SB 4) targets data-driven pricing and surveillance. Businesses that use an automated price setting device fed by personal data (other than to set a discount) and advertise the price online must show "THIS PRICE WAS INCREASED BY A PRICE SETTING DEVICE USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" or similar. Retailers and delivery apps may not use surveillance pricing. Data privacy act controllers using facial recognition on premises for security must match only against their own database and post entrance signs. It also requires data brokers to register, bans selling precise geolocation data, and adds genetic-testing consent rules. Signed May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING DISCLOSURE
Illinois's HB 4717 (104th General Assembly) would require an entity that sets prices with personalized algorithmic pricing (dynamic pricing set by an algorithm using personal data) and advertises or offers it using the consumer's personal data to include the disclosure 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA'. A violation would be an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Referred to the House Rules Committee February 6, 2026.
Prohibits the use of any automated or algorithm-driven process by which the price charged for an essential good or service is adjusted on a real-time basis substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor.
New York's A 9152 would add General Business Law § 396-rrr prohibiting sellers of essential goods and services, including platforms, from using dynamic pricing: an automated or algorithm-driven process adjusting price in real time "substantially in reference to any non-cost-based factor." Exemptions include auctions, bona fide contracts, financial and insurance products and emergencies. Only the Attorney General could sue, for civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation or three times gross receipts. Would take effect on the ninetieth day after it becomes law. Referred to Consumer Affairs and Protection October 17, 2025 (and January 7, 2026); it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibits use of algorithm or artificial intelligence to set residential rental amounts and prohibits landlord price fixing of residential rents. Violations constitute a deceptive trade practice and violators are subject to civil suit.
Rhode Island H 8058 (2024), as introduced on March 13, 2024, would add section 34-18-15.1 barring any landlord or person from using an algorithm, commercial computer program or digital technology, including AI, to set or determine residential rent. It would also bar sharing rental information with intent to stabilize rents across owners. Violations would be deceptive trade practices, with civil actions for injunctions, damages and treble damages. The text says it takes effect upon passage.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's HB 734, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced February 26, 2024; sent to the House Appropriations & Revenue Committee March 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
AN ACT relating to the promotion of family well-being and making an appropriation therefor.
Kentucky's SB 34, the omnibus ALPHA Act on family well-being, included a provision that would bar the Cabinet for Health and Family Services from relying exclusively on automated, AI-based or algorithmic software to identify fraud in public assistance programs and from denying, discontinuing or reducing benefits without staff review of the documentation. Introduced January 2, 2024; sent to the Senate Appropriations & Revenue Committee January 5, 2024. It died when the 2024 session ended without passing.
California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025.
California's SB 295 (2025-26 Regular Session), the California Preventing Algorithmic Collusion Act of 2025, would have barred a person from distributing, or making recommendations based on, a pricing algorithm to 2 or more competitors, under specified circumstances, if they knew or should have known it processes competitor data, and from using such recommendations. Civil penalty up to $25,000 per violation. The Senate passed it 29-10, but the Assembly refused passage 13-24 on September 13, 2025.
No Use Of Ai For Rent Manipulation
New Mexico's HB 215 (2025), 'No Use of AI for Rent Manipulation', would have enacted a new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act. Owners and their agents could not subscribe to or pay a 'coordinator', meaning a software or data analytics service that collects rent, supply or lease data from two or more owners, analyzes it by computation and recommends rents, renewal terms or occupancy; coordinators could not facilitate anticompetitive agreements; and owners could not engage in consciously parallel pricing. House Judiciary gave the committee substitute a Do Pass on February 18, 2025; the bill was then postponed indefinitely (undated) and died.
Surveillance-based price and wage discrimination prohibited.
Not law. Minnesota's HF 4131 would have added Minn. Stat. 325D.141 prohibiting surveillance-based price discrimination and wage discrimination, meaning use of an automated decision system to inform individualized prices or wages from surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Listed cost, group-discount and insurer risk exceptions would apply, and wage-setters would have to disclose the data and how the system uses it. The text has no penalties or enforcer. Introduced March 9, 2026; effective August 1, 2026 if enacted.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 45; Title 47 and Title 66, relative to algorithmic pricing.
Tennessee's HB1468 (114th General Assembly) would have barred an entity from setting the price of a specific good or service for a consumer in Tennessee using personalized algorithmic pricing, meaning dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data. A violation would have been an unfair or deceptive act under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977. Insurers, certain financial institutions and some subscription prices were exempt. Companion: SB 1807. Not passed before the session ended in April 2026; last action: Sponsor(s) withdrawn. (March 18, 2026).
Enacts the preventing algorithmic pricing discrimination act
New York's S 7033 would have enacted the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertised or published personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have had to disclose "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" (new General Business Law § 349-a), and General Business Law § 396 would have barred using protected class data in pricing. The Attorney General could seek penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. The Senate struck the enacting clause on April 15, 2026.
ALGORITHMIC PRICING
Illinois's HB 4544 would create the Preventing Algorithmic Pricing Discrimination Act. Anyone who knowingly advertises personalized algorithmic pricing based on a person's consumer data would have to state that the price was set by an algorithm using the person's personal data, and pricing could not use protected class data to deny or vary offers. Filed January 22, 2026; referred to the House Rules Committee January 30, 2026 (co-sponsor added February 18, 2026); it has not passed either house.
Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary to implement the state transportation, economic development and environmental conservation budget for the 2025-2026 state fiscal year; relates to the waterfront commission act; makes amendments to change "applicant" to "licensee or…
New York's 2025-26 budget bill (Chapter 58 of 2025) includes two AI laws. Part U requires operators of AI companions (AI that simulates a sustained human-like relationship) to make reasonable efforts to detect and address suicidal ideation or self-harm and refer users to crisis services such as 988, and to tell users at the start of an interaction and every three hours that they are not talking to a human; the Attorney General can seek up to $15,000 a day (in effect since November 5, 2025). Part X requires businesses using personalized algorithmic pricing to show 'THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA' (since July 8, 2025).
Regulates the use of artificial intelligence in aiding decisions on rental housing and loans; requires a study on the impact of artificial intelligence and machine learning on housing discrimination and redlining.
New York's A 3930 would regulate algorithms in housing and lending. Landlords and banks using automated decision tools to screen applicants would need annual disparate impact analyses, 24-hour notice to applicants, and (landlords) public posting of results; landlords could not use pricing algorithms with nonpublic competitor data to set rent. Tenants could sue for damages. The housing agency would study AI and housing discrimination. Would take effect immediately. Referred to Housing January 30, 2025 and January 7, 2026; it has not passed either chamber.
Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices
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.
State-by-State Regulation of Algorithmic Pricing
Artificial intelligence regulation is advancing at the state level. This page lists the 66 published bills we track on Algorithmic Pricing. State attorneys general, privacy regulators, and legislatures are developing a patchwork of laws that impose different obligations on businesses deploying AI systems related to this topic. Compliance teams and legal counsel must track both enacted laws and the pipeline of pending bills that could shift requirements at any time.
Obligations differ from bill to bill. Depending on the law, they can include consumer disclosure obligations, prohibition on specific high-risk uses, mandatory algorithmic impact assessments, bias audits, rights to explanation, and human override requirements. Penalties for non-compliance vary by state — use our Penalty Tracker to review enforcement provisions. For upcoming effective dates, see the Deadlines page.
To understand how Algorithmic Pricing laws intersect with specific industries, browse our Healthcare, Employment, Insurance, and Financial Services industry trackers. Compare how different state laws approach this topic using our Bill Comparator.