No Rigged Grocery Prices Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 19, 2026
Bottom line
The "No Rigged Grocery Prices Act" aims to prevent personalized price increases for groceries based on consumer data and enhance transparency in online grocery ordering and delivery.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits large food retailers and third-party delivery services from using a consumer's personal data to implement dynamic pricing for food items, meaning they cannot increase prices based on individual consumer data. It also requires online grocery providers to disclose changes in item availability or if an item is priced by weight, and mandates explicit consumer approval for substitutions by third-party delivery services.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill protects consumers from potentially exploitative pricing practices that leverage personal data to charge different individuals different prices for the same grocery items. They contend it promotes fairness and transparency in the digital marketplace, ensuring that consumers are not unknowingly subjected to higher prices based on their browsing history, location, or other personal information. Furthermore, proponents highlight the importance of clear disclosures for online orders and explicit consent for substitutions to improve the consumer experience and prevent unexpected charges or unwanted items.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that restricting dynamic pricing could stifle innovation and limit the ability of retailers to offer personalized deals or manage inventory efficiently. They might contend that dynamic pricing, when transparent and consent-based, can benefit consumers through targeted promotions and optimized supply chains, potentially leading to lower overall costs or more competitive pricing in some instances. Critics could also raise concerns about the administrative burden on businesses to comply with new disclosure and consent requirements, which might increase operational costs that could be passed on to consumers.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation by any interested party.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Dynamic Pricing Based on Personal Data
This provision makes it illegal for large grocery stores (15,000 sq ft or more) and food delivery services to use a customer's personal information to charge them more for food. It specifically targets price increases that are tailored to an individual based on their data, aiming to ensure everyone pays the same base price for groceries regardless of their personal profile.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for consumer protection, preventing companies from exploiting individual data to maximize profits through variable pricing, which can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations or create an unfair marketplace.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this blanket prohibition limits retailers' flexibility to innovate with pricing models, potentially hindering their ability to offer competitive prices or personalized discounts that could benefit some consumers. They may also claim that distinguishing between prohibited dynamic pricing and permissible promotional offers could be complex to implement.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between protecting consumers from potentially unfair personalized price increases and allowing businesses the flexibility to use data for competitive pricing strategies, including personalized offers. The bill attempts to navigate this by allowing voluntary loyalty programs and objective cost-based pricing.
Section 2(b)
Online Order Transparency and Explicit Substitution Approval
This section imposes two main requirements for online grocery orders. First, any covered entity offering online grocery items must tell the consumer if an item's availability has changed or if its price is determined by weight. Second, third-party delivery services must get explicit permission from the consumer before substituting a grocery item that was ordered.
Section 2(c)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement
This provision designates any violation of the bill's prohibitions and requirements as an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce these new rules using its existing powers, jurisdiction, and duties, including imposing penalties.
Defines a "food retailer" as a business that is at least 15,000 square feet and sells food to consumers. This size threshold means the prohibition on dynamic pricing primarily applies to larger grocery stores, supermarkets, and potentially big-box retailers with significant grocery sections, rather than smaller convenience stores or specialty shops.
Section 2(d)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms precisely to limit the scope of the bill's applicability.
Case for: Supporters would argue that focusing on larger retailers targets entities with the technological capacity and market power to implement sophisticated dynamic pricing schemes, while avoiding undue burden on smaller businesses.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding smaller retailers creates an uneven playing field or leaves a loophole for smaller, but still significant, online-only food sellers or specialty stores to engage in dynamic pricing.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the dynamic pricing prohibition to larger physical grocery stores and their online operations, potentially excluding thousands of smaller food sellers.
This subsection carves out specific exceptions where dynamic pricing is still permitted. These include promotional offers, loyalty/reward programs, temporary discounts for customer retention, offers where the consumer consented to provide personal data for that specific offer, and pricing based on objective costs like shipping or taxes.
Section 2(a)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to provide necessary nuances and avoid unintended consequences, ensuring the bill doesn't inadvertently ban beneficial consumer programs.
Case for: Proponents would argue these exceptions are vital to allow legitimate and beneficial consumer programs (like loyalty discounts) to continue, distinguishing them from exploitative data-driven price increases. They ensure the bill targets harmful practices without stifling competition or consumer choice.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exceptions could create loopholes, making it difficult to enforce the primary prohibition if companies can reframe data-driven price increases as "promotional offers" or obtain broad consent.
Estimated impact: Significantly shapes the practical application of the dynamic pricing ban, allowing many common personalized offers to continue.