California Assembly introduces AB 446 to ban surveillance pricing practices

The Assembly Judiciary Committee of the California State Assembly convened on May 6, 2025, to discuss Assembly Bill 446, known as the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act. The bill aims to prohibit businesses from using personal data to adjust prices based on individual consumer profiles, a practice referred to as surveillance pricing.

The meeting began with a presentation from the bill's author, who highlighted the growing concern over surveillance pricing practices. He cited a significant lawsuit in San Diego, where a retailer was penalized for raising prices as customers entered the store based on geolocation data. The author argued that such practices are predatory and disproportionately affect lower-income individuals, emphasizing the need for fairness in pricing.

Supporters of the bill, including representatives from Consumer Watchdog and the UFCW Western States Council, echoed these sentiments. They argued that surveillance pricing undermines public trust and exploits consumers, particularly those with fewer shopping alternatives. They stressed that the bill is not just about economic justice but also about preventing digital exploitation.

Opposition to the bill was voiced by representatives from the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Retailers Association. They expressed concerns that the bill could lead to increased litigation costs for businesses and complicate the ability to offer discounts. They argued that the bill's broad language could inadvertently restrict legitimate pricing strategies, including discounts for loyalty programs and promotions.

Committee members engaged in a robust discussion regarding the implications of the bill. Some expressed support for the need to protect consumers from discriminatory pricing practices, while others raised concerns about the potential unintended consequences for businesses. The conversation also touched on the enforcement mechanisms of the bill, particularly the inclusion of a private right of action for consumers harmed by surveillance pricing.

Ultimately, the committee voted in favor of the bill, with several members acknowledging the need for further refinement of the language to address concerns raised by the opposition. The bill's passage marks a significant step toward regulating surveillance pricing practices in California, reflecting the state's ongoing commitment to consumer protection and privacy rights. The committee plans to continue discussions to ensure that the bill effectively balances consumer protections with the operational needs of businesses.