Vermont agency urges modernizing 50‑year‑old unit‑pricing law, warns on electronic shelf‑label —surge pricing—

On April 16, agency officials testified to a legislative committee considering H.942 that Vermont's unit‑pricing law needs an update to reflect modern retail technology and practices. Mark Pacquette, Weights & Measures program chief at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, said the statute is —over 50 years old— and —antiquated,— and urged lawmakers to adopt national standards already in use for the past several years.

The agency recommended folding unit‑pricing language into the state's weights‑and‑measures framework and clarifying a separate gap that can leave some items on shelves without any posted total price. "Some of the language in the regulation is cumbersome and difficult to comply with," Pacquette said, and the change would bring Title 6/9 language into alignment with existing enforcement practice.

Scott Dolan, Vermont Weights & Measures specialist and the agency's technical lead on unit pricing, told the committee that adopting national guidance would simplify compliance for multi‑state retailers and ease enforcement. He cited a 2023 Food Industry Association survey that, he said, found that "74% of shoppers use unit pricing if it's available." Committee members asked about that survey's sampling and whether usage differs between large grocery stores and small convenience outlets.

A central point of debate was who would be required to display unit prices. Current Vermont practice contains exemptions — including a longstanding threshold tied to stores under 7,000 square feet and single‑store operations — and the committee and agency wrestled with whether to keep, change or replace that test. Agency staff warned that strictly defining "convenience store" or using square footage alone can produce anomalies (for example, Dollar General or similar formats) and said enforcement may best rest on a simple, enforceable rule or on agency policy implementation.

Lawmakers and staff discussed alternative, enforcement‑friendly tests, including number of stores in a chain or whether a retailer uses UPC/pricing software (a technical trigger that, staff said, could indicate the operator has the capability to present unit prices). "If you step into a store and they have UPC/pricing technology, why aren't you doing unit pricing?" one staffer asked during the hearing.

Agency witnesses raised consumer‑protection concerns tied to electronic shelf labels and algorithmic price changes. Pacquette and Dolan described scenarios in which a shelf tag would advertise a price but a remote update or surge‑pricing algorithm could raise the checkout price before the consumer reaches the register. "We want to avoid 10 price changes during the day," Pacquette said, arguing for guardrails that would prevent consumers from being misled by time‑varying tags.

Officials also presented a recent consumer complaint to illustrate enforcement challenges: a paper shelf tag for bagged apples that read as if pricing was $3 per pound but showed a total selling price the customer interpreted as $8.99, producing confusion about which number governed the sale. Agency staff said such mismatches amount to a misrepresentation and can trigger corrective action; their standard enforcement sequence is education and a pricing improvement plan first, followed by penalties for repeat violations.

Agency staff acknowledged enforcement capacity limits. They described a small weights‑and‑measures team juggling many duties and said their current approach relies heavily on education and prioritized inspections at the largest stores where enforcement yields the biggest consumer benefit. They asked lawmakers to consider language that is administrable given the agency's limited staff and resources.

Retailer representatives who have engaged with agency staff expressed concerns about cost and operational burden for small operators, while several committee members emphasized protecting —the little person— — shoppers who benefit from transparent unit pricing. Lawmakers encouraged agency and industry to continue negotiating draft language and signaled they would wait for a consolidated proposal from stakeholders before taking a formal position.

The committee recessed for a 10‑minute break after the presentation; staff said they will remain engaged as language is developed and that the agency will continue technical assistance and outreach to retailers.