NYC Council Committee Hears Bills on Surveillance Pricing and Grocery Price Hikes – June 17, 2026
New York City Council Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection Hearing – June 17, 2026
The New York City Council Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection, chaired by Harvey D. Epstein, held a hearing on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, to discuss two proposed local laws: Introduction 0891 (prohibiting surveillance pricing) and Introduction 0892 (restricting the frequency of price increases in grocery stores to no more than once per 24-hour period). Both bills received extensive testimony from the administration, public advocate, state attorney general’s office, labor unions, business groups, and consumer advocates. The committee heard the bills and laid them over for further consideration.
Opening Statements
- Chair Harvey D. Epstein opened the hearing, emphasizing the need to protect consumers from price manipulation based on personal data and real-time price changes.
- Speaker Julie Menon, sponsor of Int 0891, defined surveillance pricing as setting prices using consumer personal data collected via surveillance technology, leading to different prices for different consumers. She cited examples including grocery chains changing prices up to 2,000 times per day, ride-share apps raising prices when a phone battery is low, and a grocery delivery platform showing price differences as high as 23% for the same products at the same time. Her own investigation across 370 pricing checks found consistent variation in discounts among ride-share accounts. She stated the bills aim to bring transparency and lower costs for New Yorkers.
- Public Advocate Jumaane Williams voiced support, highlighting how surveillance pricing can discriminate against people of color and low-income communities, citing a 2022 investigation where internet providers charged higher prices in less white, lower-income areas.
Discussion Items
- Testimony from Commissioner Sam Levine (DCWP): Commissioner Levine supported both bills but recommended amendments. For Int 0891, he proposed adding a private right of action and ensuring that data collected for discount programs is not used for harmful purposes. For Int 0892, he suggested additional record-keeping requirements. He noted that the agency would need additional funding—approximately eight new positions total (four for each bill)—to enforce the legislation effectively.
- Questions from Council Members: Speaker Menon asked about enforcement challenges due to the invisibility of surveillance pricing. Commissioner Levine emphasized partnerships with groups like Consumer Reports and the need for private litigation. Councilmember De La Rosa inquired about electronic shelf labels (ESLs); Levine confirmed that inspections found ESLs at chains like Lidl, Aldi, ShopRite, and Food Bazaar, raising concerns about rapid price changes and potential disadvantage to small businesses. Councilmember Ariola suggested requiring stores to post information about pricing complaints. Councilmember Wilson asked about third-party pricing services; Levine noted that an FTC study found such consultancies offering surveillance pricing to over 250 companies.
- Testimony from New York State Attorney General’s Office: Jared Hova supported an outright ban on surveillance pricing, noting that disclosure laws have limited utility because consumers cannot easily detect the practice. He emphasized that legitimate discounts—uniformly offered—can coexist with a ban.
- Public Testimony:
- Labor Unions (Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW, RWDSU National): Supported the bills but urged strengthening them by banning electronic shelf labels, addressing data collection in loyalty programs, and protecting workers from customer backlash. They argued that ESLs are the infrastructure enabling predatory pricing even without explicit surveillance.
- Business Groups (Chamber of Progress, Tech NYC, Hotel Association of NYC, Bronx Chamber): Expressed concern that Int 0891’s broad definitions could ban discounts, coupons, and loyalty programs that rely on purchase history or voluntary data (e.g., cart abandonment discounts, completion discounts on registries). They urged the council to allow the state’s similar bill (One Fair Price Act) to finalize first to avoid a patchwork of regulations. Some supported a prohibition on using data to increase prices but not to lower prices.
- Consumer Advocates (EPIC, AARP, American Economic Liberties Project): Strongly supported the bills, arguing that personalized discounts are a veiled form of price discrimination. EPIC recommended removing references to surveillance technology and adding a private right of action. AARP highlighted vulnerability of older adults on fixed incomes. The Economic Liberties Project warned that allowing discounts based on personal data would create a loophole for discrimination.
- Individual Testifier: Christopher Leon Johnson supported both bills, warning that nonprofits funded by ride-share and delivery apps may lobby against the legislation.
Key Outcomes
- Both Introduction 0891 and Introduction 0892 were heard and laid over by the committee. No vote was taken.
- The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) indicated it would need additional staff (approximately eight positions) for enforcement and community outreach, funding not yet in the budget.
- Several speakers recommended amendments: adding a private right of action to Int 0891, banning electronic shelf labels in Int 0892, clarifying definitions to protect uniform loyalty discounts while preventing individualized price discrimination, and aligning with the state’s One Fair Price Act.
- The committee will continue to work with stakeholders, including DCWP, the Attorney General’s office, labor unions, and industry representatives, to refine the bills before a future vote.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, good morning. Welcome to the New York City Council hearing on the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection. At this time, please silence all electronics and do not approach the days. Again, please do not approach the days. If you're testifying or have any other questions or concerns, please contact the Sergeant at Arms. Thank you for your cooperation. Chairs, you may begin. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Oh yeah, we got them. Thank you for joining the legislative hearing today and the council's consumer worker protection on introduction to $891 and $892. I want to thank the majority leader and the speaker for and for advancing this legislation. I'm going to recognize my colleagues who are here. And on Zoom, it is Ariola. And Councilmember Hanks was here, but I think she's going to be coming back. And I'd like to be able to turn it over to the speaker for our opening statement. Great. Thank you so much. I first of all want to thank Chair Epstein for holding today's hearing. I'm Julie Menon, Speaker of the New York City Council. I want to thank the administration for testifying today. I'm here today to discuss a bill in relation to prohibiting surveillance pricing, and it's also one that I'm proud to sponsor. That's introduction eight nine one, and also proud to support introduction eight nine two, sponsored by majority leader Sean Abreu in relation to restricting the frequency of price increases in grocery stores. So first of all, I want to start by defining some of these terms because I think this will be useful. Surveillance pricing is a practice of setting a price that utilizes a consumer's personal data collected through surveillance technology. The price fee or discount that is set for one consumer or group of consumers may differ from the price fee or discount that is set for another consumer or group of consumers based on that utilization of personal data. This personal data can be gathered, it can be purchased, or it can be acquired from a third party. Dynamic pricing is the practice of changing the price for a consumer good or service literally in real time, sometimes instantaneously, sometimes multiple times a day. In light of advancements in technology, which should be utilized to benefit consumers, many shoppers are noticing troubling trends. For example, perhaps someone searches online for the perfect NYX jersey to wear to the parade tomorrow. Or another example, many New Yorkers have had the experience where they're leaving a bar after a night out, and a group of roommates all order a four-hire vehicle at the exact same time, only to discover that each one of them is quoted a different price to be taken on the exact same route. Or perhaps most troubling at all, there's now technology that supermarkets could potentially utilize where if you place a bunch of bananas listed at three dollars into your carts after you get to the checkout counter, that price is now scanning at seven dollars for those bananas. New Yorkers should be protected from this type of price inconsistency and unpredictability, and more importantly, they deserve to understand how and why it's happening. In our research, and I want to be clear, we sent investigators out to look at this issue. In our research, the council has discovered the following examples of surveillance and dynamic pricing. This is by the way, not an exhaustive list. I'm just going to list some of the examples we found. Major grocery chains are beginning to roll out digital shelf labels that enable stores to easily update prices. Grocery stores that have implemented them report that they can change a price of items up to 2,000 times per day. Investigations have found that major chain retailers set different prices based on consumers' proximity to their store or competitor's store, with the price of a television at one store increasing from $499.99 to $599.99 cents when the consumer pulled into the store's parking lot. A behavioral economist who worked at a ride share company revealed that the application increases prices when a consumer's phone battery is low because they might not be otherwise be able to get home if they don't accept the high offer. An outside investigation published in December 2025 found that a grocery delivery platform was engaging in algorithmic pricing experiments that resulted in consumers paying different prices for the same products from the same store at the same time with price differences as high as 23% for certain products. On April 18th, an Airlines X account suggested a customer try clearing their account and their cookies or booking with an incognito window after the customer complained about a $230 increase in their ticket price within one day, indicating that the company is using personal browsing data to set flight prices. And finally, from our own investigation that we did, using 10 different ride share accounts to conduct approximately 370 pricing checks that our investigators did across three standard routes. Our investigation found consistent variation in discounts across accounts. Some accounts repeatedly received automatically applied discounts that other accounts viewing the same route at the same moment did not, so that otherwise identical riders were quoted different final prices. At least one account received no discounts at all over 370 pricing checks. These examples should concern all of us. It is crucial that government acts now to prevent this predatory behavior from becoming any more common. And I just want to say, as somebody practiced consumer protection law for a very long time, the issue with dynamic and surveillance pricing is it's insidious.
openpublica.com