An Act to create 100.309 of the statutes; Relating to: algorithmic pricing of essential consumer goods, granting rule-making authority, and providing a penalty.
AB1190 creates a new state law restricting the use of personalized algorithmic pricing by grocery retailers when selling “essential consumer goods,” such as packaged foods, personal care products, household paper products, and household cleaning products. The bill defines personalized algorithmic pricing as prices that fluctuate based on real-time processing of consumer data, including data from brokers, online sources, direct consumer input, or surveillance technologies. It also defines covered retailers and stores, focusing on businesses that derive most of their revenue from packaged food sales and operate stores of at least 15,000 square feet.
Under the bill, a grocery retailer generally may not use personalized algorithmic pricing for essential consumer goods unless the price is clearly disclosed with the statement, “This price was set by an algorithm using personal data.” The bill also prohibits electronic shelf displays in the same field of vision as the product when the price is set through personalized algorithmic pricing, bars pricing that varies based on protected characteristics such as race or sex, and forbids purchasing consumer personal information from data brokers for pricing purposes. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Department of Justice are given investigative and enforcement authority, and aggrieved consumers may sue for damages, costs, and attorney fees.
The bill would create s. 100.309 of the Wisconsin statutes and add a new regulatory framework for grocery pricing practices. It would limit how grocery retailers may use consumer data and algorithmic systems in setting prices for essential consumer goods, require disclosures in certain circumstances, and prohibit data-broker-based pricing inputs and discriminatory price variation. It also authorizes DATCP to adopt rules, gives DATCP and DOJ enforcement powers, allows district attorneys to bring actions after consulting with DATCP, and establishes civil forfeitures and private rights of action.
The available context shows little recorded debate or voting activity, so there is no strong evidence of formal opposition or support in the provided materials. The bill’s introduction and addition of a cosponsor suggest active sponsorship, and the overall framing indicates a consumer-protection approach aimed at transparency and fairness in grocery pricing. Because no committee transcripts or votes are included, sentiment can only be characterized as generally pro-consumer and precautionary toward algorithmic pricing practices.
The main points of contention implied by the bill are the limits it places on retailer pricing flexibility and data use. Grocery retailers may object to the disclosure requirement, the ban on electronic display of algorithmically set prices in the same field of vision, and the prohibition on using data-broker information for pricing essential goods. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s discrimination-related pricing ban, which targets price variation based on protected characteristics, as well as the private right of action and penalties, which increase compliance and litigation risk. No specific stakeholder positions are provided in the record, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from stated testimony.