QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

Congress targets price gouging—but vague rules may backfire on supply.

H.R. 4720 — Cracking Down on Price Gouging Act · Filed by Josh Riley (D-NY) · Introduced Jul 23, 2025 · Referred to committee

65%
Transparency
Typical bill: 85%
18/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
Price Control / Consumer Protection

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill amends the Defense Production Act to prohibit 'price gouging' during declared shortages of critical goods—food, medicine, energy, and other essentials. It defines an 'unfairly excessive price' as one that jumps 10% or more above the pre-shortage baseline, and allows the President to designate materials as scarce. Violators face fines of up to 300% of revenue gained through the violation. The bill exempts price increases justified by legitimate business costs.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a price ceiling on essential goods during declared shortages, enforced through criminal penalties. It is a direct intervention in market pricing, not a tax or subsidy.

What the text implies

  • The 10% presumptive threshold may not account for legitimate supply-chain cost increases (freight, labor, procurement), potentially forcing sellers to absorb losses and exit the market during crises.
  • The definition of 'acute shortage' is extremely broad ('extreme industry consolidation' and 'any other similar exigent constraint'), giving the President wide discretion to trigger price controls.
  • The 300% penalty is punitive and may deter suppliers from serving shortage-affected regions, exacerbating scarcity.
  • The 'legitimate business need' exception is undefined, creating litigation risk and enforcement unpredictability for sellers.

Who it affects

Consumers benefit from price caps during acute shortages (lower medicine and food costs during crises), but the vague definition of 'unfairly excessive' and 'legitimate business need' creates enforcement uncertainty. Suppliers may reduce supply or exit markets if margins are squeezed, potentially worsening shortages. The 10% presumptive threshold is arbitrary and may not reflect actual cost increases.

Who stands to gain

  • consumers during shortages
  • government (penalty revenue)

Named in the bill

Defense Production Act of 1950, President (designation authority), Critical goods (food, medicine, energy), Sellers / suppliers

Where it stands

  • Jul 23, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
  • Jul 23, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Financial Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services”

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

How this was measured

Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jun 10, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.

Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.

As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.

“Congress targets price gouging—but vague rules may backfire on supply.” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr4720 Report an error

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record

The week in bills

One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.

One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.