HB1779 would add a new section to Title 12 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to regulate personalized algorithmic pricing. The bill requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure whenever a business advertises or offers a price that is personalized using consumer data: the disclosure must state, “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.” The measure is aimed at making algorithm-driven pricing more transparent to consumers when prices are tailored to an individual using data tied to that person.
The bill also prohibits the use of protected class data in setting prices, marketing, offering, or selling goods or services when that use either denies people the same accommodations, advantages, or privileges as others, or results in different prices based in whole or in part on protected class data. It defines protected class data broadly to include characteristics protected under state or federal law, such as ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health care. The bill excludes insurers and a range of financial services from its coverage, including credit cards, personal loans, mortgages, broker-dealers, and registered investment advisers.
If enacted, the bill would give the Office of Attorney General authority to investigate violations, seek injunctions in Commonwealth Court or county court, issue subpoenas, and obtain civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. It also allows harmed persons to file complaints with the Bureau of Consumer Protection, which must investigate those complaints. The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment and would create new compliance obligations for businesses using algorithmic or dynamic pricing systems in Pennsylvania.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is policy-driven and consumer-protection oriented, with the sponsors framing the measure as a fairness and transparency safeguard for modern pricing practices. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to address concerns about hidden algorithmic discrimination and opaque pricing rather than to expand pricing flexibility for businesses.
The main points of contention likely center on whether the disclosure requirement and the ban on using protected class data are workable in practice, how businesses would identify and document algorithmic pricing decisions, and whether the exemptions for insurance and financial services are too broad or necessary. Another likely issue is enforcement: the Attorney General’s authority, subpoena power, and per-violation penalties may be viewed as important consumer protections by supporters, but potentially burdensome or vague by opponents concerned about compliance costs and litigation risk.
HB1779 would amend Title 12 by creating a new consumer-protection rule governing algorithmic pricing and by assigning enforcement duties to the Office of Attorney General and the Bureau of Consumer Protection. It would require disclosures for personalized algorithmic pricing, prohibit certain uses of protected class data in pricing and sales decisions, and authorize civil enforcement, injunctions, subpoenas, and penalties. The bill would affect businesses that use dynamic pricing or consumer-data-driven pricing models, while expressly excluding insurers and specified financial services from its scope.
The bill’s tone is strongly consumer-protective and anti-discrimination, with an emphasis on transparency in algorithmic pricing and fairness in the use of consumer data. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, there is no documented legislative debate to gauge formal support or opposition. On its face, the measure appears to be sponsored as a response to concerns about hidden algorithmic pricing practices and potential discriminatory effects.
Likely areas of contention include the practicality of the required disclosure language, the breadth of the prohibition on using protected class data, and how businesses would prove compliance when pricing is driven by complex algorithms. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer transparency, anti-discrimination, and enforcement tools for the Attorney General, while critics may argue the bill could be difficult to administer, could chill legitimate pricing innovation, or could create uncertainty about what data and pricing practices are covered. The exemptions for insurers and financial services may also draw scrutiny from those who view them as necessary carveouts or, alternatively, as inconsistent gaps in coverage.