Three States Move to Ban Surveillance Pricing. Industry Starts to Notice.

New York's legislature just cleared a surveillance pricing ban, making it the third state to do so after Maryland and Connecticut. Maryland signed first in April, Connecticut in May, New York this week. The bill is now on Gov. Hochul's desk. Twenty-four states have introduced over 40 bills this year. California's AB 2564 has explicit EFF and Center for Democracy and Technology coalition support and is the next domino.

State of Surveillance Editorial Team

A grocery store produce shelf with bins of peppers, lettuce, cucumbers and other vegetables under fluorescent lighting, the kind of aisle where an algorithm decides what you pay
Photo via Unsplash

TL;DR: New York's legislature cleared the One Fair Price Act this week, making the state the third legislature to pass a surveillance pricing ban after Maryland (HB 895, signed April 28) and Connecticut (SB 4, signed May 27). The bill is now on Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk. California AB 2564 has explicit EFF and Center for Democracy and Technology coalition support and is the next domino. Twenty-four states have introduced over 40 bills this year.

What Just Happened

New York's legislature cleared the One Fair Price Act earlier this month, alongside the companion Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act [1][6]. Together they form the One Fair Price Package that Attorney General Letitia James rallied supporters for at a May 8 Bronx rally, and they make New York the third state to pass a surveillance pricing ban, after Maryland (HB 895, signed April 28) and Connecticut (SB 4, signed May 27) [4][6].

The One Fair Price Act would ban the use of personal data to set individualized prices for any New York consumer. The companion bill would specifically ban electronic shelf labels in grocery stores and pharmacies. Both bills explicitly exempt loyalty programs, coupons, subscription pricing, and senior or veteran discounts. The Office of the Attorney General would be authorized to bring civil cases for penalties and restitution. Bills are now on Gov. Hochul's desk.

Three States in 50 Days

Maryland was first. Governor Wes Moore signed HB 895 on April 28, 2026, banning dynamic pricing for food retailers and delivery services, with penalties of $10,000 to $25,000 per violation [2]. Connecticut was second. Governor Ned Lamont signed SB 4 on May 27, 2026, a sweeping privacy package that includes a surveillance pricing ban effective October 1 [3]. New York became the third to clear a surveillance pricing ban when the legislature passed the One Fair Price Act and the companion electronic-shelf-label bill, both now awaiting Gov. Hochul's signature [4][6]. A fourth state, Colorado, cleared HB 1210 in May; it would take effect by default on August 12 if Governor Polis does not act.

Three states in 50 days. A fourth on the runway. The dam that did not crack in all of 2025 broke in May and June 2026.

The Coalition That Made It Happen

AG James did not run the One Fair Price campaign alone. The Bronx rally drew the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, the NAACP New York State Conference, AARP New York, the American Economic Liberties Project, the Hispanic Federation, and the Asian American Federation [1]. Per AG James's office, 66% of New Yorkers support banning surveillance pricing; a separate survey found 92% of shoppers could end up paying more than the lowest available price for the same grocery basket because of it.

"Surveillance pricing doesn't just charge some people more than others, it destroys the very idea of a price," said Pat Garofalo of the American Economic Liberties Project [1].

California Is the Next Domino

California AB 2564, authored by San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, cleared a key Assembly vote in May and is the legislative vehicle to watch [5]. It would ban surveillance pricing with $12,500 fines per violation per consumer, tripled for intentional violations, and allow loyalty programs and publicly disclosed discount criteria. The bill has explicit backing from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, and California's AG Rob Bonta opened a parallel investigation in January [5].

Roughly half of US states are now considering bills to regulate algorithmic pricing this year.

Why the Industry Is Starting to Notice

Three states is a tipping point. Once a retailer has to build a non-personalized pricing system for Maryland, Connecticut, and New York, the marginal cost of running a separate surveillance-priced system in the remaining 47 states shrinks. Companies that sell across state lines do not want to maintain two systems.

The California Chamber of Commerce is already opposing AB 2564, arguing that a ban would "eliminate discount opportunities" and raise base prices [5]. The argument would land better if the documented cases involved companies giving people lower prices. The Instacart experiment found shoppers paying more, not less. The hotel sites charged Bay Area residents more, not less.

New York's bill now sits on Hochul's desk. If she signs, the three-state count is locked. Either way, the wave is rolling and the industry knows it.

Sources

  1. New York Attorney General: "AG James Rallies in the Bronx to Ban Surveillance Pricing" (May 8, 2026)
  2. State of Surveillance: "Maryland Signs Nation's First Surveillance Pricing Ban" (April 28, 2026)
  3. State of Surveillance: "Connecticut Passes Data Broker Kill Switch and Surveillance Pricing Ban" (May 27, 2026)
  4. EPIC: "New York Becomes Third State to Pass Surveillance Pricing Ban" (June 4, 2026)
  5. CalMatters: "Why Surveillance Pricing Bans Are Gaining Traction This Year" (May 15, 2026)
  6. New York Attorney General: "New Yorkers Join AG James in Celebrating the Passage of the One Fair Price Act" (June 10, 2026)