TL;DR: The New York City Council passed a surveillance pricing ban on November 12, 2026, blocking companies from setting prices by algorithm using your personal data [1][2]. The vote was 44-5 [3]. The law takes effect one year after it becomes law [2], a start date amNY reports was extended from 120 days [3], and it arrives with three openings that Consumer Reports had asked the Council to close before passage [4]. Penalties cap at $1,000 for each violation [2], and enforcement starts with four extra city employees [3].
What the Council Actually Passed
Introduction 891-A, sponsored by Speaker Julie Menin with 19 other council members as co-sponsors, defines surveillance pricing as "pricing set completely or in part by algorithm that uses personal data to offer different prices to different customers for the same goods or services" [2]. It also prohibits advertising a price set that way, and bars collecting, using, selling, retaining, sharing for valuable consideration, or disclosing personal data "for the purpose of facilitating surveillance pricing" [2].
Penalties come from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, which can investigate complaints and issue fines of up to $1,000 per violation, "with every consumer or transaction affected constituting a separate violation" [5]. Legistar lists the status as "Enacted (Mayor's Desk for Signature)" [2]. Menin said "The City Council is putting consumers first by ending the deceptive and insidious practice of surveillance pricing" [1], and the city calls the law among the strongest surveillance pricing bans in the country [1].
The Evidence the Council Put in Its Own Bill
One investigation cited by the Council found "a major grocery delivery platform" running algorithmic pricing experiments that produced "individualized price differences as high as 23 percent" [1]. Another found a television's price at one retailer climbing "from $499.99 to $599.99 when the consumer pulled into the store's parking lot" [1]. A behavioral economist who worked for a major ride-share company said the app "increases prices when a consumer's phone battery is low" [1].
The Council ran its own test. Menin described an investigation that used 10 rideshare accounts for approximately 370 pricing checks across three routes, finding "some accounts repeatedly received automatically applied discounts that others did not when checking the same route at the same time" [3].
Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative and More Perfect Union ran a bigger version of that test in December 2025, with nearly 400 consumers shopping for the same basket of goods at the same time, and found price differences "as high as 23% for certain products" that could cost families "more than $1,200 a year at checkout" [4]. Instacart later said it would end the program that showed different shoppers different prices [4]. In a May 2025 investigation, CR found Kroger building shopper profiles with inferences about income, family size and gender, one shopper receiving a 62-page profile after asking for their data [4].
That last detail is the one to sit with. The price is the visible part. The data profile is the product.
The Three Loopholes That Survived the Vote
Consumer Reports sent Menin and the Council a letter in October with three requests: close the "location data" loophole, tighten or remove the exemption for purchase history data, and drop the corrective action request language from the enforcement section [4]. The Council passed the bill anyway, with all three intact.
The location carve-out sits in the definition of personal data. The bill excludes location data a consumer knowingly shares for "calculating trip duration and mileage costs" or for assessing "current or historical local supply and demand conditions" [2]. Those are the inputs a surge-pricing engine runs on.
The purchase history exemption lets a business discount based solely on what a customer bought from that business before, provided the data is "not paired, combined, or cross-referenced with any other consumer data except the fact of enrollment in a loyalty, membership, or rewards program" and the use is disclosed [2]. Consumer Reports warned the combination "nullifies the deterrent effect, and all but ensures that consumers harmed by surveillance pricing are never made whole" [4].
The third is the enforcement clause. If the department finds that a covered business has violated the law for the first time, it must notify the business first. The business then has 30 days to show it fixed the problem. The bill says "A violation shall not be considered corrected" unless it paid restitution to the consumers harmed [2]. Covered businesses are chains "with fewer than 15 locations nationally" doing business under the same name and running most of their business from New York City locations [2].
Who Fought It, and What It Costs to Enforce
The bill changed on its way to the floor. The original proposal was two pages; the version passed runs 10 pages, after a June 17 hearing where business groups warned it would interfere with rewards programs [3]. Uber spokesman Josh Gold said the law "will make it harder for small restaurants with limited marketing budgets to reach customers, putting them at a disadvantage against national chains" [6]. Menin's answer was that the legislation would not affect discounts [6].
The enforcement budget is thin. The Council's fiscal impact statement estimates the cost at $356,258 a year beginning in fiscal year 2029, funding four additional department employees: two investigators, an attorney and a community associate [3]. The agency asked for a private right of action, so consumers could sue, and did not get it. Commissioner Sam Levine told the committee that "it’s important to buttress administrative enforcement with private enforcement" [3].
What to Watch
First, the mayor's signature. The bill is on Mamdani's desk [2], he supports it, and he called surveillance pricing "just another way corporations are finding to squeeze working people" [6]. Second, the rules. Businesses that use surveillance pricing must publish procedures telling consumers what personal data was considered and how, and hand that data to the department on request [2]. The law does not take effect for a year, so none of that is required yet [2].
Third, whether the carve-outs get amended before the one-year start date [2]. Fourth, whether the businesses in the Council's own findings fight this in court: Uber, Lyft, Target, Instacart and airlines have all faced scrutiny for alleged surveillance pricing, and many have denied using it [6].
Why It Matters
The law's logic is easy to state and worth stating plainly: the price you pay should not be a function of what a company decided to collect about you. New York City has now written that into a statute [1]. The penalty is up to $1,000 for each violation [2].
The enforcement logic is harder. There is no private right of action, so no consumer can sue [3]. The department is getting four extra employees [3], and a first-offense notice period gives small businesses 30 days before proceedings [2]. That is a complaint desk, not a deterrent. Council Member Harvey Epstein made the stakes explicit: "when pricing is based on personal and biometric data, which is exactly what surveillance pricing relies on, the probability of discrimination skyrockets" [5].
Two of the three surviving openings are about the data that sets the price, which is the part a shopper never sees. We have covered [the House inquiry into the retailers who set prices from shopper data](/news/pallone-surveillance-pricing-inquiry-25-retailers-walmart-target-amazon-2026), and our [state-by-state tracker](/news/surveillance-pricing-24-states-ban-algorithmic-pricing-tracker-2026) shows how many jurisdictions are now writing the same rule on paper.
Sources
- New York City Council: "New York City Council Approves Landmark Legislation Banning Surveillance Pricing" (November 12, 2026)
- New York City Council Legislative Tracking System: Int 0891-2026, "Prohibiting surveillance pricing" (November 12, 2026)
- am New York: "Same product, different price? NYC Council passes ban on companies using your data to set prices" (November 12, 2026)
- Consumer Reports: "Consumer Reports urges New York City Council to strengthen the surveillance pricing ban" (October 30, 2026)
- New York City Council: "New York City Council to Vote on Surveillance Pricing Ban" (November 12, 2026)
- Gothamist: "NYC Council passes ban on 'surveillance pricing' that relies on personal data" (November 12, 2026)