Sponsor seeks ban on 'surveillance pricing' in Nebraska with LB 10 78

Nebraska Legislature Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee · February 10, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senator George Dungan's LB 10 78 would ban pricing tied to a consumer's device or inferred personal characteristics while allowing exemptions for real‑time surge pricing; the sponsor framed the bill as consumer protection against AI‑driven discrimination and asked the committee for input on exemptions and enforcement.

Senator George Dungan told the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee that LB 10 78 — the Fair Online Pricing Act — is intended to prohibit companies from generating prices based on consumers' device hardware, device condition, or other inferred personal data, a practice the sponsor described as "surveillance pricing." The bill includes carefully scoped exemptions for surge pricing, geolocation‑based pricing for immediate services, and other limited uses.

"This bill is consumer protection against AI surveillance of your data and setting a price based on what it thinks you are willing to pay instead of a fair market price," Dungan said in his introductory remarks. He cited reporting and investigations that found examples of device‑ or location‑based price differences and referenced consumer surveys showing broad public concern.

Witnesses and committee members discussed economic tradeoffs, the difficulty of detecting some forms of algorithmic discrimination, and potential impacts on discounts and personalized savings. Opponents including technology and retail trade groups warned that broadly banning device‑ or software‑based pricing inputs could also block consumer benefits such as targeted discounts and coupons delivered through apps. The sponsor said he is open to refining exemptions and to drafting language that preserves legitimate discounts while targeting non‑consensual use of consumer data.

The hearing included detailed floor exchanges about the balance between anti‑discrimination goals and preserving competitive pricing strategies; no committee vote or final action was recorded in the transcript.