Pricing privacy in grocery stores

Full Title:
Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2025

Summary#

This bill would ban certain grocery-store pricing practices. It bars selling items at a "grossly excessive price," and it bans using personal data (including facial recognition) to set different prices for different shoppers. It also requires stores that use facial recognition to post clear signs, bans electronic shelf labels in large stores, and gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), states, and consumers tools to enforce the rules.

  • Prohibits "grossly excessive" prices for items and directs the FTC to publish guidelines on what that means (the FTC may consider a threshold like 120% of the 6‑month market average).
  • Bans surveillance-based price setting — changing prices for a shopper based on personal information (including via facial recognition or electronic shelf labels), with limited exceptions for uniform discounts and reasonable cost differences.
  • Allows voluntary use of biometric data only with written notice and written release and limits sharing or selling of that biometric data.
  • Requires clear signage at store entrances if facial recognition is in use (does not apply to online entities).
  • Prohibits electronic shelf labels or digital shelf displays in retail food stores larger than 10,000 square feet (does not apply to online entities).
  • Enforcement: treated as an FTC Act violation; states can sue on behalf of residents; consumers get a private right of action with statutory damages (greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation) and treble damages for willful violations. The bill authorizes $5 million for implementation.

What it means for you#

  • Consumers

    • Stores cannot charge what the bill calls a "grossly excessive price" for an item. The FTC will issue rules explaining what that means.
    • Stores cannot set a different price for you based on personal information (like purchase history, facial data, location) in most cases.
    • If a store uses facial recognition, you should see a clear sign at the main entrance explaining its use and purpose.
    • You can sue a store for violations and may recover actual damages or $3,000 per violation (more if the violation was willful).

  • Shoppers who opt in to biometric ID

    • A store may use your biometric data only if you get written notice, a written release, and the store discloses how long it will keep the data and when it may share it with law enforcement. The store cannot sell that biometric data.

  • Retail food stores (grocery operators)

    • Must avoid pricing practices that could be judged "grossly excessive."
    • Must not use personal information to set individualized prices for shoppers, except in the limited, uniform discount cases the bill allows.
    • Large stores (>10,000 sq ft) must use non-digital price tags (paper/stickers/signs) rather than electronic shelf labels.
    • Must post entrance signage if using facial recognition and must obtain written releases for voluntary biometric programs.

  • Online grocery sellers

    • The signage and electronic-shelf-label bans explicitly do not apply to online entities. Other parts of the bill (price gouging and surveillance-based price setting) use the bill's definition of "retail food store" and would apply as defined, but the bill is explicit that the signage and shelf-label sections exclude online entities.

  • States and attorneys general

    • Can sue as parens patriae (on behalf of residents) for injunctions, damages (actual or $3,000 per violation), and other relief.

Expenses#

Estimated public cost: The bill authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2025 to carry out the law (available through September 30, 2032).

  • $5,000,000 authorized to the FTC for implementation and enforcement.
  • The bill does not include a broader fiscal note estimating FTC staffing, rule-writing, or long-term enforcement costs beyond that authorization.
  • Compliance costs for retail stores (changing pricing systems, replacing electronic shelf labels, creating signage, obtaining written releases, legal fees, and potential litigation costs) are likely but not estimated in the bill.
  • Potential liability exposure for stores from private lawsuits and state enforcement could lead to payouts or settlements; the bill sets statutory damage amounts but gives no cost estimates.

No publicly available information on total administrative, compliance, or litigation cost estimates beyond the $5,000,000 authorization.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to protect shoppers from extreme price increases and from being charged different prices based on intrusive surveillance.
  • Supporters may argue the bill would increase pricing transparency and fairness in grocery stores.
  • The bill would protect consumer privacy by limiting use of facial recognition and other biometric or surveillance data for price setting.
  • By giving consumers a private right of action and empowering state attorneys general, the bill appears designed to provide multiple enforcement paths.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill leaves key terms—like "grossly excessive price," "market," and how to calculate average prices—to future FTC rules. That could cause uncertainty for stores until the FTC issues detailed guidance.
  • The ban on electronic shelf labels in stores over 10,000 sq ft may increase costs or reduce operational efficiencies for large stores that use digital pricing systems.
  • Although there are exceptions for uniform discounts and cost-based price differences, it is unclear how narrowly or broadly the FTC will interpret those exceptions. This may make common retail practices (like loyalty discounts, targeted coupons, or promotional pricing) risky without further guidance.
  • Allowing extensive private lawsuits with statutory damages could increase litigation risk and compliance costs for stores.
  • The $5 million authorization may be insufficient to cover long-term FTC enforcement and rule-writing needs; the bill does not provide detailed funding estimates.