Prohibits the use of surveillance pricing, directly or indirectly; prohibits the collection, use, retention, or sharing of data to facilitate surveillance pricing; provides exceptions; provides for enforcement by the attorney general; makes related provisions.
This bill amends New York’s General Business Law to prohibit “surveillance pricing,” defined as pricing set in whole or in part by an algorithm that uses personal data to offer different prices to different customers for the same goods or services. It also bars entities and service providers from collecting, using, retaining, sharing for value, or disclosing personal data for the purpose of facilitating surveillance pricing. The bill distinguishes surveillance pricing from bona fide discounts and bona fide custom discounts, and it requires clear disclosures when dynamic pricing changes more than once in a 24-hour period.
The bill also defines key terms such as algorithm, personal data, dynamic pricing, reference price, online marketplace, and bona fide custom discount. It creates specific exceptions for insurance-regulated entities, certain financial institutions and affiliates when pricing is tied to credit risk, and pricing required or expressly authorized by federal or state law. It further clarifies that the law does not affect ordinary prices or bona fide discounts except as needed to prohibit surveillance pricing and require certain disclosures.
The bill would add a new consumer-protection restriction to New York law by amending General Business Law section 349-a, expanding the state’s regulation of algorithmic and data-driven pricing practices. It would expose violators to existing remedies under section 349 plus additional civil penalties, including up to $5,000 for a first violation and $20,000 for each subsequent violation, or the profits earned from the violation, whichever is greater. Enforcement authority is placed with the attorney general, who may also promulgate implementing rules, and recovered penalties are earmarked for consumer protection and data privacy enforcement.
The voting history suggests generally favorable support for the bill, with passage through multiple committees and final passage in both chambers by substantial margins. The committee and floor votes indicate that most lawmakers viewed the measure as a consumer-protection and privacy bill aimed at limiting unfair or opaque pricing practices. At the same time, the non-unanimous votes show that a meaningful minority had reservations about the scope or effects of the restrictions.
The main points of contention appear to be the breadth of the surveillance-pricing ban and the compliance burden on businesses that use algorithms or dynamic pricing. Potential concerns include whether the bill could sweep in legitimate promotional pricing, loyalty programs, or data-informed discounts, and whether the disclosure requirements for dynamic pricing are workable in practice. The exceptions for insurance, financial institutions, and certain credit-risk-based pricing suggest lawmakers were also trying to balance consumer protection with existing regulated pricing systems and legitimate business uses of data.