Further providing for definitions and for price gouging prohibited.
Summary
HB1496 amends Pennsylvania’s Price Gouging Act to broaden and clarify when price gouging protections apply during emergencies. The bill updates the definition of “unconscionably excessive” by tying the comparison price to the seven days immediately before a state or local disaster emergency, and it revises the prohibited conduct section to cover both state-declared and locally declared disaster emergencies. It also keeps the 30-day post-emergency window during which excessive pricing remains prohibited.
The bill further strengthens the evidentiary standard for proving price gouging by stating that a price increase of 20% or more above the average pre-emergency price in the affected area is prima facie evidence of an unconscionably excessive price. It also updates the emergency-notification provision so that registered businesses or other entities may receive notice when either a state or local emergency is declared or ended, while making clear that failure to receive notice is not a defense to a violation.
Impact
HB1496 would expand the reach of Pennsylvania’s existing price gouging law by expressly applying it to local disaster emergencies as well as state disaster emergencies, and by refining the benchmark used to measure emergency-related price increases. The bill would affect sellers and others in the chain of distribution of consumer goods and services in the geographic area covered by an emergency declaration, and it would give regulators a clearer statutory basis for enforcement using the 20% threshold and the seven-day pre-emergency pricing window. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill has generally favorable support in committee, as the House Consumer Protection, Technology & Utilities Committee reported it as committed by a 17-9 vote. No committee transcript is available, but the committee vote indicates meaningful support for strengthening emergency price gouging protections, alongside a smaller bloc of opposition. The bill’s framing as a consumer protection measure likely contributes to its positive reception among sponsors and supporters.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the scope and enforceability of the expanded price gouging standard. Critics may object to extending the law to local disaster emergencies, which can broaden regulatory exposure for businesses, and to the 20% prima facie threshold, which may be viewed as too rigid or burdensome in volatile supply conditions. Supporters, by contrast, appear to favor clearer and stronger protections for consumers during emergencies and more explicit enforcement standards for state and local authorities.