Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Luján, Ben Ray [D-NM]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 12, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect consumers from unfair pricing and privacy-invasive technologies in grocery stores by regulating pricing practices and banning certain digital tools.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits retail food stores from engaging in price gouging, defined as selling items at a grossly excessive price, and from using surveillance-based price setting practices that adjust prices based on a consumer's personal information. It also bans electronic shelf labels in retail food stores larger than 10,000 square feet and requires clear signage for stores using facial recognition technology. The Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and private citizens are authorized to enforce these prohibitions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is essential to protect consumers from exploitative pricing practices, particularly during periods of economic instability, and to safeguard personal privacy against intrusive data collection and algorithmic discrimination. They contend it will foster fairer competition and ensure that essential goods remain accessible at reasonable prices, preventing retailers from leveraging personal data for profit at the expense of consumers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill imposes significant regulatory burdens and compliance costs on retail food stores, which could ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher prices or reduced services. They may also argue that banning electronic shelf labels stifles technological innovation and efficiency, while restrictions on dynamic pricing interfere with free market principles and could limit retailers' ability to offer personalized discounts.
The bill is moderately complex due to its definitions and enforcement mechanisms, but its length makes it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Prohibition on Price Gouging
This section prohibits retail food stores from selling or offering items at a "grossly excessive price." It includes an affirmative defense if price increases are directly due to uncontrollable, incurred costs. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is mandated to define what constitutes a "market," a "grossly excessive price," and an "excessive price," considering a threshold of 120 percent of the average price in the preceding 6-month period.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this provision is crucial for consumer protection, especially during supply chain disruptions or economic crises, ensuring that essential food items remain affordable and preventing retailers from unfairly profiting from market conditions.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that defining "grossly excessive price" is inherently difficult and could lead to arbitrary enforcement, discouraging retailers from adjusting prices to reflect legitimate cost increases or market dynamics, potentially leading to supply shortages or reduced inventory.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances consumer protection against potentially exploitative pricing with concerns about market interference and the operational flexibility of retail businesses to respond to legitimate cost fluctuations.
Section 3
Prohibition on Surveillance-Based Price Setting
This section bans retail food stores from adjusting prices based on a consumer's personal information, including data collected via facial recognition technology or through electronic shelf labels. Exceptions are made for uniform discounts based on publicly disclosed eligibility criteria (e.g., occupation, age) where personal information is used solely for administering the discount and not for other purposes. It also allows the voluntary use of biometric data by adult consumers for identity verification, provided strict written consent and disclosure requirements are met, and the data is not sold or shared 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 of such use and its intended purpose through signage placed at the main entrance. 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, requiring them to use non-digital presentations of price for all items. It clarifies that this does not prohibit providing personalized discounted or promotional prices based on purchase history, provided it aligns with Section 3(b) exceptions. This prohibition also does not apply to online entities.
Section 6
Enforcement Mechanisms
This section establishes robust enforcement mechanisms. Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the Federal Trade Commission Act, granting the FTC full enforcement powers. State attorneys general are authorized to bring civil actions on behalf of their residents, seeking injunctions, compliance, actual damages or $3,000 per violation, and other relief. Crucially, it creates a private right of action for injured consumers, allowing them to seek injunctions, actual damages or $3,000 per violation (trebled for willful/knowing violations), and attorney's fees. It also invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and joint action waivers for these private actions.
Section 7
Preemption of Directly Conflicting State Laws
This section clarifies that the Act does not preempt any State law, except to the extent that a State law directly conflicts with a provision of this Act. It further specifies that a State law does not 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.
The bill suggests that the FTC, in defining 'grossly excessive price,' should consider a price that is 120 percent (or a lesser percentage) of the average price for that item in the market during the preceding 6-month period.
Section 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This phrasing allows the FTC flexibility in its final rulemaking while providing a strong directional hint. It's standard legislative practice to give agencies discretion while guiding their interpretation.
Case for: Supporters would argue that providing a specific numerical benchmark, even as a consideration, gives clear guidance to the FTC and to retailers, making the price gouging prohibition more concrete and enforceable.
Case against: Critics might argue that a fixed percentage, even as a guideline, could be too rigid and fail to account for legitimate market fluctuations, seasonal demand, or significant supply chain shocks that could justify higher price increases.
Estimated impact: This consideration could become the primary metric for identifying potential price gouging, significantly influencing enforcement actions and retailer pricing strategies.
An exception allowing retail food stores to use biometric data of adult consumers for voluntary identity verification, provided strict conditions are met, including written consent, disclosure of purpose, sharing circumstances with law enforcement, and a prohibition on selling or sharing the data with third parties.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:It's a nuanced exception designed to allow for specific, beneficial uses of biometric data (like secure identity verification) while maintaining strong privacy protections. This level of detail is common for balancing competing interests.
Case for: Proponents would argue this exception allows for secure and convenient identity verification options for consumers who voluntarily opt-in, without compromising their privacy, as data cannot be sold or shared broadly.
Case against: Critics might express concern that any allowance for biometric data collection, even with consent, opens a door to potential misuse or security breaches, and that the conditions might be difficult to fully enforce in practice.
Estimated impact: This provision could enable the adoption of biometric payment or loyalty systems in retail food stores, but only under stringent privacy controls, potentially increasing convenience for some consumers while maintaining privacy for others.
Invalidates pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pre-dispute joint action waivers between a retail food store and a consumer for purposes of the private right of action established in this Act.
Section 6(c)(6)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to include significant legal process changes within enforcement sections. It's substantively important but technically phrased, often placed where legal experts would look.
Case for: Supporters argue this is essential for ensuring consumers can effectively exercise their private right of action, preventing companies from using arbitration clauses to block class-action lawsuits or force individual consumers into less favorable dispute resolution forums.
Case against: Opponents would argue that invalidating pre-dispute arbitration agreements undermines contract law and could lead to an increase in costly litigation, which they contend is less efficient than arbitration for resolving disputes.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly strengthens the private right of action, making it much easier for consumers to pursue claims against retail food stores for violations of the Act, potentially leading to more class-action lawsuits.