Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 12, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to curb perceived exploitative pricing practices and privacy intrusions by retail food stores through federal prohibitions and robust enforcement tools.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits retail food stores from engaging in price gouging and surveillance-based price setting. It defines price gouging as selling items at a "grossly excessive price" and mandates FTC guidelines for this definition. It also bans the use of electronic shelf labels in large retail food stores and requires disclosure of facial recognition technology use. The bill establishes enforcement mechanisms through the Federal Trade Commission, State attorneys general, and a private right of action for consumers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is necessary to protect consumers from predatory pricing practices by large grocery chains, especially during times of economic instability or supply chain disruptions. They contend that surveillance-based pricing and dynamic electronic shelf labels allow stores to unfairly manipulate prices based on individual consumer data, exacerbating economic inequality. Furthermore, supporters believe that empowering consumers with a private right of action and banning pre-dispute arbitration agreements will provide meaningful recourse against these practices.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that the bill's prohibitions on price setting and electronic shelf labels could stifle innovation, increase operational costs for grocery stores, and ultimately lead to higher prices for consumers. They contend that dynamic pricing can be a legitimate business practice to manage inventory and respond to market conditions, and that personalized discounts benefit consumers. Critics also raise concerns about the broad definition of "personal information" and the potential for overregulation, which could disproportionately affect smaller businesses or lead to unintended consequences in the retail food sector.
The bill is moderately complex, requiring careful reading of definitions and exceptions. An informed reader would need adequate time to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2
Prohibition on Price Gouging
This section prohibits retail food stores from selling or offering items at a "grossly excessive price." It provides an affirmative defense if the price increase is directly due to uncontrollable additional costs incurred by the store. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is mandated to define "grossly excessive price" and related terms, considering a price 120 percent or more of the average market price over the preceding six months as a potential threshold.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for protecting consumers from exploitative pricing, especially during emergencies or market disruptions. They believe it will ensure fair access to essential goods and prevent retailers from profiting excessively at the expense of vulnerable populations.
Critics contend
Critics contend that defining "grossly excessive price" is inherently difficult and could lead to arbitrary enforcement, potentially discouraging retailers from stocking certain items or responding flexibly to supply chain challenges. They argue it could interfere with legitimate market dynamics and create uncertainty for businesses.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances consumer protection against price exploitation with concerns about market efficiency and regulatory burden on businesses. The challenge lies in defining "grossly excessive" in a way that is both effective and fair, without stifling legitimate business operations or creating unintended shortages.
Section 3
Prohibition on Surveillance-Based Price Setting
This section prohibits retail food stores from adjusting item prices based on a consumer's personal information, including data collected via facial recognition technology or electronic shelf labels. It includes exceptions for price differences based on reasonable costs, publicly disclosed group discounts (e.g., for students or military), and uniform discounts. It also allows the voluntary use of biometric data for identity verification under strict conditions, including written consent, disclosure of purpose and sharing with law enforcement, and a prohibition on selling or sharing such data with third parties.
Section 4
Required Disclosure of Use of Facial Recognition Technology
This section mandates that any retail food store using facial recognition technology must clearly and conspicuously notify consumers at its main entrance, using plain and simple language, about the use and intended purpose of such technology. This requirement does not apply to online entities.
Section 5
Prohibition on Electronic Shelf Labels in Large Stores
This section prohibits retail food stores larger than 10,000 square feet from using electronic shelf labels or any digital shelf display technology. Instead, these stores must use non-digital presentations of prices, such as physical signs, stickers, or tags. This prohibition does not prevent stores from offering personalized discounts based on purchase history, provided they comply with the conditions for general exceptions to surveillance-based price setting (Section 3(b)). This section also explicitly excludes online entities from its scope.
Section 6(a), 6(b)
Federal and State Enforcement
This section grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and State attorneys general. Violations of the price gouging, surveillance-based price setting, facial recognition disclosure, or electronic shelf label prohibitions are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act. States, acting as parens patriae, can bring civil actions to enjoin violations, enforce compliance, and seek monetary damages (greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation), restitution, or other relief on behalf of their residents.
Section 6(c)
Private Right of Action for Consumers
This section grants consumers a private right of action to sue retail food stores for violations of the bill's prohibitions. Injured consumers can seek injunctions, actual monetary damages (or $3,000 per violation, whichever is greater), restitution, and other relief. If a violation is found to be willful or knowing, the award can be tripled. Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Actions must be commenced within 5 years of discovery of the violation. Crucially, pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint action waivers are explicitly deemed invalid and unenforceable for purposes of this section.
Section 7
Limited Preemption of State Laws
This section clarifies that the Act does not preempt, displace, or supplant any State law, except where a State law directly conflicts with a provision of this Act, and only to the extent of that conflict. Importantly, a State law is explicitly deemed *not* to conflict if it provides additional protections to consumers regarding price gouging, surveillance-based price setting, personal information collection, or facial recognition technology in retail food stores.
Section 8
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes an appropriation of $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 to carry out the Act. These funds are to remain available until September 30, 2032.
The definition of "grossly excessive price" grants significant discretion to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while suggesting a benchmark of 120 percent of the average price over the preceding 6-month period as a consideration, but not a strict mandate.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This approach is standard legislative practice to provide regulatory agencies with flexibility to adapt rules to changing market conditions and specific circumstances, rather than locking in a potentially rigid numerical threshold.
Case for: Supporters would argue that granting the FTC flexibility allows for a more nuanced and effective response to various forms of price gouging, ensuring the definition can evolve with market dynamics and specific product categories. It avoids a 'one-size-fits-all' approach that might be ineffective.
Case against: Critics might argue that this discretion introduces uncertainty for businesses, as the exact threshold for a "grossly excessive price" is not fixed in statute. This could lead to inconsistent enforcement or make it difficult for retailers to proactively ensure compliance, potentially inviting more litigation.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly shapes the practical application and enforcement scope of the price gouging prohibition, determining how broadly or narrowly the FTC can interpret and apply the law.
While generally prohibiting surveillance-based price setting, the bill includes specific exceptions. Section 3(b) allows price differences based on reasonable costs, publicly disclosed group discounts (e.g., occupation, age), and uniform discounts where personal information is used solely for administering the discount. Section 3(c) allows the voluntary use of biometric data for identity verification under strict conditions, including written consent, disclosure of purpose and sharing with law enforcement, and a prohibition on selling or sharing such data with third parties.
Section 3(b) and 3(c)
Why it matters:These are standard legislative carve-outs designed to prevent the main prohibition from inadvertently banning legitimate business practices or consumer-benefiting services, while still maintaining the core intent of the bill.
Case for: Proponents would argue these exceptions provide necessary flexibility, allowing for common and beneficial practices like student discounts or secure identity verification, without undermining the primary goal of preventing discriminatory surveillance-based pricing.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exceptions could create loopholes, particularly if the definition of "reasonable costs" or "publicly disclosed eligibility criteria" is interpreted too broadly, potentially allowing some forms of personalized pricing to persist.
Estimated impact: These exceptions significantly narrow the scope of the prohibition on surveillance-based price setting, allowing certain data-driven practices to continue under specific conditions.
The requirements for facial recognition technology disclosure (Section 4) and the prohibition on electronic shelf labels (Section 5) explicitly state that the term "retail food store" for purposes of these sections "does not include an online entity."
Section 4(b) and 5(c)
Why it matters:This is likely intended to focus the bill's scope on physical brick-and-mortar grocery stores, where the issues of in-person surveillance and physical shelf pricing are most relevant, without extending regulations to the distinct operational models of online retailers.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clarifies the bill's intent to address specific practices in physical retail environments, where consumers have different expectations of privacy and pricing transparency compared to online shopping. It avoids overreach into the e-commerce sector, which has its own regulatory challenges.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding online entities creates a loophole, allowing online grocery retailers to engage in similar surveillance-based pricing or data collection practices without the same disclosure or technological restrictions, potentially creating an uneven playing field or shifting problematic practices online.
Estimated impact: This exclusion limits the applicability of these specific prohibitions to physical retail locations, leaving online grocery platforms unregulated by these particular sections.
This clause explicitly states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a pre-dispute arbitration agreement or pre-dispute joint action waiver between a retail food store and a consumer shall not be valid or enforceable for purposes of this section."
Section 6(c)(6)
Why it matters:This is a highly consequential policy decision often placed in enforcement or definitions sections. Its placement here ensures that consumers can pursue their claims in court, individually or collectively, without being forced into arbitration, which is often seen as less favorable to consumers.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision is essential for ensuring consumers have meaningful access to justice. They contend that pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class-action waivers are often buried in terms of service, effectively stripping consumers of their legal rights and allowing corporations to avoid accountability.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision undermines the efficiency of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. They contend that arbitration is often faster and less costly than litigation, and that banning these agreements will lead to an increase in expensive and time-consuming lawsuits, ultimately harming businesses and potentially consumers through higher prices.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly alters the legal landscape for consumer disputes with retail food stores, enabling class-action lawsuits and court proceedings for violations of this Act, which could lead to substantial legal costs and settlements for retailers.