Relates to price gouging; imposes criminal penalties for price gouging; removes language relating to the declaration of a state of emergency; increases civil penalty; authorizes a district attorney to enforce provisions.
This bill amends New York’s General Business Law section 396-r on price gouging. It expands and clarifies the state’s prohibition on charging unconscionably excessive prices for essential goods and services during an abnormal disruption of the market, including disruptions caused by weather events, power failures, strikes, civil disorder, war, emergencies, drug shortages, and other comparable causes. The bill also broadens the definition of covered goods and services to expressly include essential medical supplies and services, and it removes the prior requirement that a governor declare a state of emergency before the law applies.
The bill further strengthens enforcement by making a violation a criminal offense classified as a violation, while preserving civil enforcement tools. It authorizes district attorneys to file criminal accusatory instruments and allows the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in Supreme Court. Civil penalties are increased to up to $25,000 per violation or three times gross receipts for the relevant goods or services, whichever is greater, and restitution may be ordered where appropriate. The bill also confirms that the Attorney General may adopt rules and regulations to implement the law.
If enacted, the bill would significantly expand the reach and enforceability of New York’s price gouging statute by eliminating the state-of-emergency trigger and allowing enforcement during any qualifying abnormal market disruption. It would affect manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, and retail sellers in the chain of distribution, including emergency repair providers, and would apply to consumer goods, household goods, and essential medical products. The bill would also increase potential liability through higher civil penalties and criminal exposure, while giving both local prosecutors and the Attorney General direct enforcement authority.
The bill’s text and caption indicate a strong consumer-protection orientation, with a clear focus on preventing exploitation during shortages and emergencies. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears designed to be a robust enforcement expansion rather than a narrow technical update.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s expanded enforcement powers and broader trigger for price gouging liability. Removing the requirement for a gubernatorial emergency declaration could be viewed by supporters as closing a loophole, but by opponents as creating uncertainty for businesses operating during fast-moving market disruptions. The addition of criminal penalties and higher civil fines may also draw concern from retailers, distributors, and other market participants who could face liability for price increases tied to supply costs, especially where the bill still leaves courts to determine what constitutes an unconscionably excessive price.