Bill bans algorithmic price discrimination, gives consumers right to sue

What it does

This bill prohibits companies from charging different prices to different customers for the same product based on personal data collected about them (surveillance data). It allows exceptions for legitimate cost differences, group discounts (teachers, veterans, students), and loyalty programs—but only if the company discloses the basis for the price difference upfront and applies it uniformly. The FTC and state attorneys general can enforce the rule, and individuals harmed can sue for damages of at least $3,000 per violation, with treble damages for willful violations.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a straightforward prohibition on surveillance-based price discrimination, with safe harbors for legitimate pricing practices. It is consumer-protective legislation, not a tax measure, subsidy, or commemorative act.

What the text implies

• The bill's definition of 'surveillance data' is broad (personal information, behavior, biometrics, purchased data) and may capture data brokers and third-party data aggregators as liable parties, not just direct retailers.
• The prima facie presumption (defendant presumed liable if two consumers got different prices) shifts burden to the company to prove the difference was not surveillance-based—a significant evidentiary advantage to plaintiffs.
• The carve-out for insurance and credit products (subsection (a)(3)) leaves those sectors unregulated, potentially allowing algorithmic discrimination in lending and insurance pricing to continue.
• The invalidation of pre-dispute arbitration and class-action waivers (subsection (d)(7)) may trigger a wave of class litigation against e-commerce and subscription platforms, creating significant litigation risk for companies relying on algorithmic pricing.
• The air carrier amendment (Section 3) applies the same rule to airlines and ticket agents, potentially affecting dynamic pricing models widely used in the travel industry.

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

Who it affects

Ordinary consumers gain protection from algorithmic price discrimination and are entitled to sue for damages if harmed. Companies retain legitimate pricing flexibility (cost-based differences, group discounts, loyalty programs) as long as they disclose the basis transparently. The private right of action with attorney's fees and a $3,000 statutory minimum per violation creates real enforcement leverage for individuals.

Who stands to gain

• consumer litigation firms (private right of action with attorney's fees)
• state attorneys general (enforcement authority and litigation costs)

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Small Business Administration (Office of Advocacy), State attorneys general, Air carriers and foreign air carriers, Ticket agents, Data brokers, E-commerce and subscription platforms

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 4 Democrats.

• Dec 8, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Dec 8, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation”

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 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $2,610,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 22 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.

Ruben Gallego, the sponsor, reported $477,461 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Delta Air Lines Inc — $1,460,000 on 1 filing
• Abbott Laboratories — $1,150,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.