SB 1322 would create a new Arizona price-gouging law for periods of “abnormal disruption of the market” affecting goods and services deemed necessary for consumers’ health, safety, and welfare. During such a disruption, a person in the chain of distribution could not sell or offer to sell covered goods and services at a price 15% or more above the price charged 60 days earlier, unless the seller can show its own costs increased by at least 10%. The bill presumes such pricing is unconscionable and defines market disruptions broadly to include weather, natural disasters, energy shortages, strikes, civil disorder, war, military action, emergencies, and certain state emergency declarations or health-related price spikes.
The bill covers a wide range of essential items and services, including food, water, diapers, feminine hygiene products, prescription drugs, electricity, natural gas, propane, gasoline, and telephone and broadband service, while excluding luxury items. It authorizes the attorney general to enforce the law, seek injunctions, and pursue treble damages, and it makes intentional violations a class 1 misdemeanor and other violations a class 2 misdemeanor. It also creates a private right of action for buyers, with civil liability up to $10,000 per violation, or up to $25,000 if the buyer is at least 60 years old.
If enacted, the bill would add Article 27 to Title 44, Chapter 9 of the Arizona Revised Statutes and would expand state trade-practices law to regulate pricing during emergencies and other market disruptions. It would also require the attorney general to refer violators who hold state business licenses to the appropriate licensing board or regulatory agency. The bill expressly preserves local authority, stating that cities, towns, and counties may adopt their own excessive-pricing ordinances and penalties that are stronger than the state law.
The available context shows no committee discussion, votes, or recorded opposition, so there is no documented sentiment from hearings or floor debate. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at consumer protection and emergency anti-gouging enforcement, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable consumers and essential goods. The only notable built-in policy tension is between consumer-price controls during emergencies and the potential burden on businesses in the supply chain that may face higher costs or supply shocks.
A likely point of contention is the breadth of the trigger for an “abnormal disruption of the market,” which includes both emergency declarations and a health department finding that food and energy prices have risen by 10% above the prior 30-day CPI measure. Another possible issue is the 15% price cap, which may be viewed as strict by sellers, especially when costs rise quickly or unevenly. Supporters would likely emphasize anti-price-gouging protections for consumers, while critics may focus on enforcement complexity, business compliance, and the risk of penalizing legitimate price increases.
SB 1322 would add a new anti-price-gouging article to Arizona’s trade practices statutes, regulating pricing for essential goods and services during declared or otherwise defined market disruptions. It would create criminal penalties, civil remedies, attorney general enforcement authority, and a private right of action, while also allowing local governments to impose stricter excessive-pricing rules.
No committee transcripts or votes are available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize. The bill’s design suggests a consumer-protection orientation, with likely support from lawmakers concerned about emergency profiteering and likely skepticism from those concerned about price controls and business impacts.
The main points of contention are likely the scope of the emergency trigger, the 15% pricing threshold, and the breadth of covered goods and services. Businesses in the supply chain may argue that the bill could capture legitimate cost increases or supply shortages, while supporters are likely to argue that essential items should be protected from excessive pricing during crises. The age-based higher damages provision may also draw attention as a consumer-protection measure for seniors.