New York could become the third state to outlaw retailer surveillance pricing if Governor Kathy Hochul signs the One Fair Price Act before a year-end deadline, a move that would hit chains like Walmart and Target.
The legislation, which cleared the New York State Legislature and now sits on Hochul's desk, would prohibit retailers from using algorithms to charge individual shoppers different prices for the same product based on personal data. It would also ban electronic price tags in stores. Hochul must sign the bill before December 31 for it to take effect, and so far, she has not signaled whether she will.
That silence matters. The bill has drawn vocal support from Attorney General Letitia James, AARP New York, and labor organizations representing grocery and retail workers. It has also drawn sharp criticism from the Business Council of New York State, which argues the law could create confusion around legitimate discounts, promotions, and coupon programs. The governor's pen will decide which side wins.
At its simplest, surveillance pricing means a retailer's algorithm looks at a shopper's browsing history, location data, purchase habits, or device type and sets a price just for that person. Two customers standing in the same aisle, or visiting the same website, can see two different numbers for the same box of cereal.
James, who has backed the bill publicly, framed the issue in consumer-trust terms.
"When New Yorkers place an order online or go to the grocery store, they should be able to trust that they are seeing the same prices as everyone else, not an individualized price set by an algorithm."
Supporters say the legislation would not touch standard discount programs or loyalty schemes. It also would not prohibit dynamic pricing algorithms outright, the kind that adjust prices based on supply and demand rather than on individual customer profiles. The distinction is narrow but important: a store could still mark down strawberries at closing time, but it could not charge one customer more than another based on what the algorithm knows about that person's willingness to pay.
The practice has drawn growing consumer backlash across industries. JetBlue faced public outrage after a grieving traveler was reportedly advised to clear browser cookies to get a lower fare, an episode that put a spotlight on how companies use personal data to manipulate prices.
The One Fair Price Act arrives after a high-profile stumble by Wendy's that showed how quickly consumers punish companies seen as gaming prices. In February, the exact year was not specified in the reporting, Wendy's CEO announced the chain would test dynamic pricing, a move widely interpreted as surge pricing for hamburgers during the lunch rush.
The backlash was swift. Wendy's scrambled to clarify, posting an official statement insisting the company never intended to raise prices at peak hours.
"We said these menu boards would give us more flexibility to change the display of featured items. This was misconstrued in some media reports as an intent to raise prices when demand is highest at our restaurants. We have no plans to do that and would not raise prices when our customers are visiting us most."
Whether Wendy's planned surge pricing or not, the episode demonstrated that Americans have a low tolerance for the idea that a company might charge them more simply because it can. That instinct is what New York legislators are trying to channel into law.
Ride-hailing companies have faced similar scrutiny. Consumer Reports found Uber and Lyft charged wildly different prices for identical rides, raising questions about whether differential pricing across the economy has outpaced the rules meant to keep it in check.
Not everyone sees the legislation as a clean win for consumers. The Business Council of New York State has pushed back, arguing the One Fair Price Act could create uncertainty around routine promotions and coupon offers that shoppers already rely on. The council highlighted that retailers use personalized pricing in part to tailor coupon opportunities, meaning some of the "surveillance" the bill targets may actually benefit the customers it claims to protect.
That argument carries some weight. A blanket ban written loosely enough could sweep in the birthday discount email from a local bakery or the app-exclusive deal from a pharmacy chain. Supporters insist the bill is narrower than critics suggest, but until Hochul signs it, or vetoes it, the exact contours of enforcement remain uncertain.
The electronic price tag ban embedded in the same legislation adds another dimension. Walmart's push to install digital price tags has already met resistance from unions and state legislatures worried the technology could enable real-time price manipulation that shoppers cannot track. A separate New York bill that would have prohibited electronic price tags on its own stalled in the Assembly, where lawmakers declined to bring it to a vote. Rolling that provision into the One Fair Price Act may have been a tactical decision to keep it alive.
If Hochul signs, New York would join Maryland and Connecticut as the only states in the country that regulate personalized pricing. That is a remarkably short list for a practice that touches nearly every consumer who shops online or carries a smartphone into a store.
The thin patchwork of state laws means most Americans have no legal protection against algorithmic price discrimination. A retailer operating in 48 other states can charge whatever its data suggests a given customer will tolerate, and the customer may never know. New York's bill would not solve that national gap, but it would put the country's fourth-largest state on record against the practice, and likely pressure other legislatures to follow.
New York has been active on consumer financial protection more broadly. New rules governing Buy Now, Pay Later products passed in the state recently, part of a pattern of Albany stepping into gaps that federal regulators have been slow to fill.
The governor has not publicly committed to signing or vetoing the bill. That ambiguity creates a strange limbo for retailers operating in New York, including national chains like Walmart and Target, who cannot plan compliance until they know whether the law will take effect. It also leaves consumer advocates unable to claim a win despite clearing the legislature.
Several key questions remain unanswered. The bill's exact definition of "surveillance pricing" has not been publicly detailed beyond the broad descriptions offered by supporters and critics. Whether the law applies to online-only retailers, brick-and-mortar stores, or both is unclear from available reporting. And the identity of the lawmakers who introduced the bill in the legislature has not been disclosed in coverage so far.
Retailers have already begun pushing back against the prospect of the ban, and the lobbying pressure on Hochul's office between now and December 31 will be intense.
Consumers deserve to know the price on the shelf is the price they pay, not a number an algorithm picked after rifling through their browsing history. If Albany can't deliver that basic transparency, it's fair to ask what the legislature is there for.