Federal price-gouging ban targets emergency profiteering, expands FTC power

What it does

This bill makes it unlawful to sell goods or services at a 'grossly excessive price' during normal times, and creates a presumption of violation if a large company with market power raises prices excessively during emergencies (natural disasters, wars, public health crises). Small businesses (under $100M revenue) get an exemption if they can show cost increases. The FTC gets $1 billion to enforce the rule and can seek permanent injunctions and civil penalties up to 5% of a company's revenue. State attorneys general can also sue. Public companies must disclose pricing strategies and cost breakdowns in SEC filings during and after emergencies.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a prohibition on excessive pricing with enforcement tools for the FTC and state AGs. While framed as anti-gouging, it is fundamentally a price-regulation statute that expands government authority to challenge pricing decisions, particularly during emergencies.

What the text implies

• The FTC's definition of 'grossly excessive price' is delegated to the agency with broad discretion (120% of prior average is a guideline, not a ceiling), creating regulatory uncertainty for pricing decisions.
• The 'unfair leverage' definition (40%+ market share, $1B+ revenue, or dominant position) is broad and may capture companies that are not monopolists but operate in concentrated markets, expanding enforcement scope.
• SEC disclosure requirements create a public record of pricing decisions and margin changes during crises, which could invite litigation, regulatory scrutiny, and reputational damage even if pricing is ultimately lawful.
• State attorneys general can sue independently and in parallel with FTC, creating duplicative enforcement and settlement risk; companies may face multiple suits for the same conduct.
• The bill does not define 'market' for purposes of price comparisons, leaving ambiguity about whether comparisons are local, regional, or national—a critical gap for enforcement.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary people gain direct protection against price gouging during emergencies when they are most vulnerable and have fewest alternatives. The exemption for small businesses and cost-justified increases preserves legitimate pricing while targeting abuse by large firms with market power. Transparency requirements in SEC filings expose corporate pricing decisions to public scrutiny.

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), State attorneys general, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Where it stands

20 cosponsors: 20 Democrats.

• Jul 17, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Jul 17, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services and House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,191,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 70 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.

Jan Schakowsky, the sponsor, reported $88,051 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• AFL-CIO — $760,000 on 1 filing
• Communications Workers of America — $431,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.