Grocery stores banned from using your face to charge you more

What it does

This bill prohibits grocery stores from charging 'grossly excessive' prices and bans 'surveillance-based price setting'—using facial recognition, personal data, or electronic shelf labels to charge different customers different prices based on who they are. Stores larger than 10,000 sq ft must use paper price tags, not digital ones. The FTC enforces it, and consumers can sue for damages.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to regulate retail pricing practices and restrict data-driven price discrimination, enforced through FTC authority and private litigation. It is fundamentally a consumer-protection and anti-discrimination measure, not a subsidy or carve-out.

What the text implies

• The 120% price threshold (or lower, at FTC discretion) may be difficult to enforce uniformly across markets with different baseline costs, potentially creating litigation risk for stores in high-cost regions.
• The ban on electronic shelf labels for stores >10,000 sq ft may increase operational costs and reduce pricing flexibility for legitimate promotional or dynamic pricing strategies that do not involve surveillance.
• Private right of action with treble damages for willful violations and mandatory attorney's fees may incentivize class-action litigation, shifting enforcement burden from FTC to courts and creating settlement pressure on retailers.
• The definition of 'personal information' is extremely broad and includes inferences and behavioral profiles, potentially capturing loyalty-program data and purchase-history discounts that stores currently offer legally.
• Facial recognition disclosure requirement applies only to physical stores, not online retailers, creating a regulatory asymmetry that may advantage e-commerce platforms over brick-and-mortar competitors.

Who it affects

Ordinary consumers gain explicit legal protection against personalized price discrimination and price gouging, with a private right of action and attorney's fees. The ban on surveillance-based pricing and mandatory disclosure of facial recognition use strengthens consumer privacy and transparency. Stores retain a clear defense if price increases reflect genuine cost increases.

Who stands to gain

• consumer advocacy organizations
• plaintiff's bar (class-action attorneys)
• smaller retailers (reduced surveillance-tech investment burden)

Named in the bill

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), retail food stores, state attorneys general, consumers, facial recognition technology vendors, electronic shelf label manufacturers

Where it stands

10 cosponsors: 9 Democrats, 1 Independents.

• Feb 12, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Feb 12, 2026 — 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

5 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $3,239,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 10 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 78% of bills with at least one filing.

Ben Luján, the sponsor, reported $1,880,294 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $5,000 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Walmart Inc — $2,060,000 on 1 filing
• Food Marketplace Inc — $584,000 on 1 filing
• Kroger Co — $350,000 on 1 filing
• United Food & Commercial Workers International Union — $200,000 on 1 filing
• Maplebear Inc. D/b/a Instacart — $45,000 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.