Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly approves AB 446 to ban 'surveillance pricing'; debate leaves open discount/loyalty exemptions
Summary
The Assembly approved AB 446 (Ward) 44-16, prohibiting businesses from using individual consumer data to charge different prices for the same goods or services. Lawmakers discussed amendments to preserve legitimate discount or loyalty programs while blocking algorithmic price discrimination based on sensitive profiles.
The California Assembly approved AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act (introduced by Assemblymember Ward), on a floor vote of Ayes 44, Nos 16.
Ward told colleagues the bill would make it unlawful for businesses to use personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service, online or at checkout. He described “surveillance pricing” as a predatory practice that can hike prices for shoppers based on characteristics inferred from data — for example, ZIP code profiling, purchase history or device signals — and said evidence shows algorithmic price discrimination can boost profits 2%–8% for sellers.
Assemblymember Zuer (supporting with qualifications) said the issue is important and noted concerns remain about protecting consumers while preserving beneficial discounts and loyalty programs. “There are issues remain related to the bill’s potential impact on the ability to offer discounts and reward and loyalty programs,” Zuer said and noted the author had made amendments and pledged further work with opponents.
Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan backed the measure and praised the author’s changes to preserve legitimate discount programs while blocking predatory schemes that raise baseline prices and then mask increases via discounts. She described surveillance pricing as a contributor to cost-of-living pressure on vulnerable households.
In closing, Ward said some amendments in print explicitly exclude loyalty and discount programs from the bill’s prohibitions and that he would continue to work with stakeholders in the Senate. “It’s not the idea…that discounts are illegal — we simply want to prevent back‑door price inflation,” Ward said.
After extended floor debate and amendments discussed on the record, the clerk closed the roll and the tally was recorded as Ayes 44, Nos 16; the measure passed the Assembly.
Action: The Assembly passed AB 446 (Surveillance Pricing Protection Act) on a recorded vote of 44-16.
Ending: The Assembly record reflects the measure’s passage; the author signaled willingness to continue refining discount/loyalty program language with stakeholders.
