One Fair Price Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 8, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to prevent price discrimination driven by personal data, ensuring consumers are offered a consistent price for goods and services, with specific exemptions for insurance and credit products.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits businesses from charging different prices to different consumers for the same or substantially similar products or services if those prices are based, in whole or in part, on "surveillance data." It establishes specific safe harbors for price differences based on reasonable costs or bona fide discounts, and grants enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission, State attorneys general, and provides a private right of action for individuals.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill protects consumers from exploitative pricing practices that leverage personal data to maximize profits, promoting fairness and transparency in the marketplace. They contend it levels the playing field, especially for vulnerable populations who might otherwise be targeted with higher prices based on their perceived willingness or ability to pay.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill stifles innovation in dynamic pricing strategies, potentially limiting businesses' ability to offer personalized deals or respond efficiently to market conditions. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden on businesses to prove price differences are not surveillance-based, and the potential for increased litigation.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are understandable, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1)
General Prohibition on Surveillance-Based Price Setting
This provision makes it unlawful for any person to offer or charge different prices to different consumers for the same or a substantially similar product or service, if those prices are informed by, or based on, in whole or in part, "surveillance data." Surveillance data is broadly defined to include personal information, behavior, or biometrics, regardless of how it was acquired.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures fairness and prevents businesses from exploiting consumer data to charge higher prices to individuals perceived as willing or able to pay more, promoting equitable access to goods and services.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this limits businesses' ability to optimize pricing, potentially leading to less competitive markets or reduced ability to offer targeted promotions that could benefit some consumers.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances consumer protection against price discrimination with business flexibility in pricing strategies and data utilization.
Section 2(a)(2)
Safe Harbor Provisions for Cost-Based Differences and Bona Fide Discounts
This section outlines exceptions to the prohibition, allowing different prices if they are based solely on reasonable costs associated with providing the product or service, or if they are bona fide discounts offered to broadly defined groups (e.g., teachers, seniors) or to consumers who knowingly enroll in a loyalty program. These exceptions are conditional on clear disclosure of the basis for price differences or eligibility criteria for discounts, and a prohibition on using surveillance data from discounts for other purposes.
Section 2(a)(3)
Exclusion for Insurance and Credit Industries
This provision explicitly states that the prohibition on surveillance-based price setting does not apply to the business of insurance or any credit product. This means that these industries can continue to use data to inform individualized pricing for their services, as governed by existing regulations.
Section 2(b)
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Authority
This section grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to enforce the Act. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts/practices and unfair methods of competition under the FTC Act. It expands the FTC's jurisdiction to include common carriers, non-profit organizations, and air carriers for the purposes of this Act, and authorizes the FTC to promulgate necessary rules and guidance.
Section 2(c) and 2(d)
State Enforcement and Individual Private Right of Action
This section grants State attorneys general the power to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents for violations, seeking injunctions, compliance, and monetary damages (the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation). It also creates a private right of action for individuals to sue for injuries, seeking similar relief, with a presumption of violation if different prices are offered for the same product. Crucially, it invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint action waivers for these claims.
Section 3
Application of Prohibition to Air Carriers and Ticket Agents
This section amends title 49, United States Code, to explicitly make surveillance-based price setting an "unfair or deceptive practice" for air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents. It also clarifies that existing federal preemption rules for air carrier claims do not preempt state or individual actions related to surveillance-based price setting under this Act, ensuring these entities are fully subject to the Act's enforcement mechanisms.
Defines "surveillance data" as data related to the personal information, behavior, or biometrics of an individual, including data gathered, purchased, or otherwise acquired. This broad definition is central to determining the scope of the bill's prohibition.
Section 2(f)(10)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to consolidate definitions in a dedicated section. However, its broad scope is critical to the bill's impact and could be overlooked by a casual reader focusing only on the main prohibition.
Case for: Supporters argue this broad definition is necessary to close potential loopholes and ensure comprehensive protection against various forms of data-driven price discrimination, regardless of how the data is obtained or its specific nature.
Case against: Critics might argue that the definition is too broad and could inadvertently capture data uses that are benign or even beneficial for consumers, leading to unintended restrictions on business practices and innovation.
Estimated impact: High, as it determines the scope of data prohibited from use in individualized pricing across all covered sectors.
Notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act or any other provision of law, this provision invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint action waivers for individual civil actions brought under this Act.
Section 2(d)(7)
Why it matters:While legally significant, it's a procedural detail related to enforcement rather than a core policy prohibition, making its placement at the end of the enforcement section understandable but easy to miss by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential to ensure consumers can effectively exercise their private right of action, preventing companies from using arbitration clauses to block class actions or individual lawsuits, which are often the only viable recourse for small-dollar harms.
Case against: Opponents, particularly from the business community, contend that this undermines established arbitration practices, which they argue are more efficient and less costly than litigation, and could lead to a flood of class-action lawsuits.
Estimated impact: High, significantly altering the legal landscape for consumer disputes related to pricing by removing a common barrier to litigation.
Excludes small business concerns "involved in developing, training, or selling a product or service for the primary purpose of aiding a business to determine a price" from the definition of "small business concern" for the purposes of this Act. This means such entities would not benefit from any small business considerations or exemptions that might otherwise apply.
Section 2(f)(9)(B)
Why it matters:It's a specific carve-out within a definition, making it easy to overlook. However, it targets a particular segment of the tech industry that enables the very practices the bill seeks to prohibit.
Case for: Supporters argue this carve-out prevents companies that enable surveillance-based pricing from claiming small business protections, ensuring the bill targets the entire ecosystem that facilitates such practices and preventing a loophole for enablers.
Case against: Critics might argue that this could unfairly burden small tech companies that develop pricing algorithms or data analytics tools, even if their clients use them for legitimate purposes, potentially stifling innovation in a critical sector.
Estimated impact: Moderate, affecting a specific niche of the tech industry that provides pricing-related software or services.