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.

The consumer sometimes can't even detect it.

So for example, we know that if you're doing online shopping and you have a cart and you leave that cart open and don't purchase the goods, we know that some companies are mining that personal data and utilizing that to know that you might be willing to pay that price and then to jack up the price accordingly.

We were thrilled to see that our state colleagues pass the one fair price act, and I'm grateful to the attorney general for her leadership in getting this bill across the finish line.

We're looking forward to the governor signing the bill, and I'm proud to be sponsoring this companion legislation to protect consumers here in New York City.

As a former commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs, I know how robust our local protections are for New York City residents and our efforts to partner with the state will strengthen them.

I also look forward to hearing from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection today to learn about how we can work together to further protect New Yorkers.

The legislation we'll discuss today is rooted in a vision of New York that is more affordable for everyone that calls our great city home.

That vision brings transparency and equity to pricing.

It gives New Yorkers more predictability and affordability in their purchases, and it empowers them to make more educated consumer decisions.

And ultimately, we hope we can play a role in driving down the costs of various types of consumer goods in our city.

I look forward to hearing the administration's testimony today.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Speaker Menon.

I really appreciate your effort and your attention to this really critical issue.

And so when New Yorkers go to the store, you know, we look at ourselves and we figure out there's a price there, and we expect that's to be the price, and that we expect that's what we're gonna pay.

That's the history that of our lives and our childhood.

And this benefits consumers because a consumer can go from one store to another and say, I can compare prices from this store to the other, and that's a system that's been brought up in this country and it's been fair.

Today we see a very different system arising.

As the speaker mentioned, you know, if you get on a cab, there's a price in a cab.

But if you take an Uber, two people are taking the same Uber, can have really wily variety of prices.

This technology is changing the system, and we can no longer expect that goods when prices will be the remain the same for two people for the same items.

The bills we're hearing today will seek to address these practices and leverage data that change prices in real time.

Surveillance, pricing, and dynamic pricing.

As the speaker said, surveillance pricing is used consumer personal information and individualized pricing, meaning consumers buying the same product at the same time may be offered different prices.

Dynamic pricing is the speaker referenced, uh pricing refers to real time and real-time adjustments to prices based on demand or other factors not specified tied to the personal data information.

The bills we have hearing today addresses both issues.

I look forward to a robust conversation with the administration and with people testifying today.

And I'm and I know we don't have any other testimonies.

Uh and then so I'm going to now uh have the administration sworn in.

Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before this committee and to respond honestly to council member questions?

I do.

And and Commissioner, just want to identify who's at the table with you today and who will be testifying.

Sure, I'm Sam Levine, Commissioner of Consumer and Worker Protection.

I'm joined by Carlos Certice, our Chief of Staff and Deputy Commissioner for External Affairs, and Andy Schwenk, our Associate General Counsel.

Uh shall I proceed?

Please, please do, Commissioner.

Um, good morning, Madam Speaker, Chair Epstein, and members of the Committee of Consumer and Worker Protection.

As I mentioned, I'm Sam Levine.

I'm commissioner.

I'm joined by my two colleagues.

Um thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today on these bills.

The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is the nation's leading municipal enforcement agency charged with delivering economic justice.

TCWP leverages its authority to bring New Yorkers real economic relief and protect them from predatory, deceptive, and unfair practices that violate their rights as consumers and workers.

This includes pioneering cutting edge protection, such as the city's consumer protection law, protective time off law, fair workweek law, and delivery worker laws, including the minimum pay rate for delivery workers.

Through licensing more than 45,000 businesses in over 45 industries, DCWP ensures fair competition in a level playing field for responsible small businesses that are integral to New York City's vibrant communities.

The ECWP also provides essential services such as free tax preparation and financial counseling to ensure New Yorkers keep more of what they earn and can plan for their futures.

DCWP is committed to making sure New York is a New York City is a fairer, more affordable place to live.

Let me now turn to the subject of today's hearing, dynamic and surveillance pricing.

I commend the speaker and majority leader for these bold steps to ensure New York remains a leader when it comes to protecting consumers from emerging pricing abuses.

This is an issue I care about deeply.

Over the last two years, I have launched federal studies, published reports, and testified before the United States Senate on the threat these practices pose.

Yet, as with many issues facing American consumers today, the federal government is asleep at the wheel.

That is why these bills, which would arm New Yorkers with the strongest safeguards in the United States, are so critical.

The fact is, large corporations are getting ever better at ripping us off.

If you listen carefully to what executives are telling investors on recent earnings calls, they are often boasting about their ability to jack up prices to the maximum each consumer is willing to pay.

What some investors are calling the holy grail of pricing.

It is wrong, it is deeply unpopular, and thanks to the work of this body, it can soon be illegal in the city of New York.

And let's be clear.

Surveillance and dynamic pricing practices are not only a threat to affordability.

Companies today are collecting vast amounts of data on consumers.

Not only our purchases, but our internet searches, our location, our ethnicity, and even data to infer our intelligence.

This data can then be sold to data brokers and placed on the market for anyone to purchase.

Last month, I was deeply concerned, but hardly surprised, to re-reporting that ICE is now looking to purchase commercial data to track our immigrant neighbors.

It is becoming clearer and clearer that reforms are necessary, not only to protect fair pricing, but also our privacy and our civil rights.

Finally, these practices also undermine small businesses, many of whom are already struggling.

Surveillance and dynamic pricing creates a race to the bottom, where firms compete over how much data they can collect from consumers in order to maximize their profits.

Small businesses, in contrast, cannot collect fast streams of data or spend millions to implement dynamic and surveillance pricing systems.

This pattern threatens to further undermine small businesses already struggling to compete with corporate giants.

For all these reasons, we applaud the council's leadership in protecting both New York City consumers and small businesses from these unfair and often unconscionable practices.

Turning to the specifics of today's legislation, intro 891 would prohibit any person that sells leases or rents goods or services, whether online or offline, from engaging in surveillance pricing.

DCWP supports introduction 891.

Surveillance pricing has no place in New York City.

Prices should not be differentiated from one person to the nets based on personal data like where they live, work, or their online history.

Specifically, we'd like to work with council on adding a private right of action to the bill to ensure that consumers have the proper tools to identify and respond to violations.

We also think it is important to ensure that any personal data collected to administer discount programs is used only for such discount programs and not for any harmful purpose, such as to increase prices or to be sold to be sold to third-party data brokers or to facilitate fake or fictitious discounts.

Turning now to introduction 892.

Intra 892 would prohibit grocery stores from increasing the price of any item more than once in a 24-hour period.

DCWP supports intro 892.

Pricing is critical for New Yorkers' affordability, and we need to ensure that we are proactively and effectively anticipating changes in the marketplace to ensure consumers are protected.

We also have recommendations to that we will share to strengthen the provisions of this bill with additional record keeping requirements.

And we look forward to working with the council on this legislation.

Turning now to intro 813, which would allow DCWP to refuse to renew, suspend, or revoke a tobacco retail dealer license upon a finding that the licensee violated sections of the New York City cannabis law, excuse me, New York State cannabis law.

We support the goal of this bill and look forward to working with council through the legislative process.

I want to thank the council and this committee and the speaker for the opportunity to testify in today's legislation.

We look forward to working with the council to consistently advance the strongest consumer and worker protections in the United States.

I welcome any questions you may have for further discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

And I want to acknowledge the public advocate, Jamani Williams has joined us and Councilmember Audiball.

And I know the public advocate had an opening statement, so I could turn it over to the public advocate now to give his opening about the NICs, I assume.

It's only about the Nicks, right?

The NICs are the only thing that matters, quite sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And yes, I have to open up with saying the Nick's did it in five.

That's uh really, really important.

Uh, but thank you very much.

Um, I'm getting my voice back slowly, and I wanted to use it for this hearing.

Uh, as I mentioned, my name is Jamina Williams, and I'm the public advocate for the city of New York.

I'd like to thank both uh Speaker Menon and uh Chair Epstein and the members of the committee on consumer and work and protection for holding this important hearing.

It's happened to me, and it's probably happened to you.

You look up the price of a cab, groceries, or a train or plane ticket only to see that price increase after refreshing the page.

As surveillance technology have gotten more sophisticated over the last decade.

Companies increasingly adjust their prices based on our personal data.

This practice is well documented in sales of groceries, ride shares, TVs, vacuums, airline tickets, internet service, and many other goods and services.

We can see surveillance pricing in real time when it happens online, but as companies collect data on every aspect of our lives, there's a real risk that is happening when shopping in person too.

Surveillance pricing is wrong for many reasons, but I particularly want to highlight the way it discriminates against people of more color, low income people, and other groups.

For example, a 2022 investigation found that many internet providers using surveillance pricing gave higher prices to customers in areas that were less white and lower income.

Companies of all kinds that use surveillance pricing don't need to directly collect data about their customers' race or income to infer it through to infer it through use of the vast amounts of other information they collect.

Even though racial discrimination is illegal, at least for now, these companies can use their enormous amounts of data and discriminate and to discriminate in effect, even if they can bypass intent by blaming our algorithms and proxy data.

As with internet service providers, they can also discriminate broadly by charging more for products sold in majority black and brown areas, even if not specifically to black and brown individuals, much like redlining of years past.

There's not much data available on whether surveillance pricing has been used to discriminate against marginalized groups as the technology and its uses are still rapidly evolving.

From the existing research, it is certainly plausible that corporations are using or could use it to discriminate by gender, sexuality, education level, and other characteristics in addition to race and income.

We cannot allow New Yorkers to be taken advantage of or discriminated against by corporations pursuing profit with no regard for the spirit or letter of decades of letter of decades of anti-discrimination statutes.

For that reason, I'm proud to support introductions 891 and 892 banning surveillance pricing and multiple price grocery pricing increases in a single day.

These important bills would make New York City safer and more affordable.

While the state legislator recently passed statewide surveillance ban, and I want to thank for the leadership they they showed on this, the city bills would go even further.

They are important first steps in reigning in unchecked corporate power and preventing emerging technologies from worsening racial and economic discrimination.

I encourage this community and the city council to vote in support of the vital legislation and thank the speaker and the council for their leadership as well as the chair.

And again, most importantly, the Knicks did it in five.

Thank you.

Thank you, and we all look forward to seeing you proudly there tomorrow as we uh uh see you bring the Knicks to this building.

I don't want to turn over to our speaker.

I know she's got some questions to on the bills.

Thank you so much, Commissioner, for your testimony.

We appreciate it, and we very much appreciate the partnership and are excited to work with you on these two bills.

So a number of different questions.

So as we know, surveillance pricing is oftentimes invisible to consumers.

How do you envision enforcing this legislation?

I think it's an excellent question, madam speaker.

It's a real problem for exactly the reason you said.

I think a key partner in enforcement are groups like consumer reports.

I think you cited some of the work on Instacar.

They released a report this week on Uber and Lyft.

The council's own investigative team, I understand, is doing work as well.

Um, that is identifying certainly circumstantial evidence that surveillance pricing is underway.

That in turn could create a predicate for us to research to investigate further, whether it's through a subpoena or conversations with the company.

So I do think this will require an all-hands-on-deck effort, and that's one reason, by the way, we support adding a private right of action to the bill.

Absolutely.

Um, do you feel the agency has the tools and resources required to enforce both the surveillance pricing and dynamic pricing bills?

Um I believe there would be some additional needs.

We've identified about four line, not about four lines for the surveillance pricing, 891, four lines for 892.

You know, fair pricing is something we've done for a long time, as you well know, but given the complexity of this issue, we do think we would need some additional lines.

And this, as you know, the state legislature recently passed legislation, which I talked about prohibiting um surveillance pricing, which is currently on the governor's desk for signature.

How do you propose working with the Attorney General's office to coordinate enforcement on that state bill?

I'm confident that we'd be very much aligned on enforcement of these bills.

The bills are clearly drafted uh with knowledge of the other.

Um we have a long history of working closely with the New York Attorney General's office.

I've met with the office on this very issue.

I think it would be a really good important partnership for the benefit of the people of New York.

Currently, has your agency received any complaints about surveillance or dynamic pricing?

I don't believe we have, and I think that's exactly for the reason you said by almost definitionally, consumers don't know whether they're being surveillance priced.

Exactly.

I mean, I do want to state for the record that's my concern.

My concern is that this practice is insidious, it's very, very hard to detect, particularly the surveillance pricing.

You uh how can a consumer know if their data personal data is being mined to charge them a higher price?

So that one in particular and dynamic pricing as well can be hard to detect.

And just to add to that, if I may, speaker, I mean, consumer reports, and probably this is what your team did too, literally have to sit a bunch of consumers in a room requesting Uber at the same time.

Ordinary people aren't doing that when they're shopping, right?

Um, in terms of dynamic pricing and the grocery stores, we are very concerned about the high price of groceries.

How do you feel the dynamic pricing bill will affect the price of groceries?

Because one of the impetus of doing both bills, both the surveillance pricing, which can for online shopping, we can see can have a a the real problems around that, and the dynamic pricing bill.

We believe both of these bills can really lower the prices of groceries here in the city.

I think that's right.

And I think this is all about especially 892, but both bills about preventing, you know, for example, I don't think we want in New York City a situation where grocery shops know that people are getting off of work at six o'clock and jacking up prices for eggs right when people are getting off of work.

I think that's exactly the kind of practice both of these bills, uh, particularly the dynamic pricing bill, are intended to prevent, and I do think that would mean lower prices for New Yorkers.

Okay.

Um, a couple other questions before I turn it back over to the chair.

Um, in terms of public education campaign around these practices, how do you think it's the best way?

Um, confident we're gonna move these bills through.

So, how do you think is the best way to educate consumers on both of these bills?

Candidly, I think it is a challenge for all the reasons you said consumers don't always know there being surveillance price.

But what I would suggest is if people are seeing as the chair reference a different price on the label than what they see at checkout, call DCWP.

If they're seeing as you reference prices go up once they have items in their cart or items in their cart with the price going up, which I have seen, call DCWP.

What I would say to New Yorkers is uh if you see something, say something, and of course you're not going to be certain what data companies are using, but tell us about it, and if we detect a pattern, we'll take action.

And Speaker, I would also add to that as well that I think our partnership on this legislation, not only through the legislative process is important, but also at the point of implementation.

We can work closely with your offices using hopefully our our new our new staff that are dedicated to community affairs as well to go out there to community and talk to folks about these new protections and rights they have as New Yorkers.

Yeah, and in closing, I will just say I believe the surveillance pricing and dynamic pricing bills that we are hearing today are going to be transformative for consumers, and certainly in an affordability crisis will be one of the best ways that we can actually bring down prices, whether it's groceries, whether it's airline tickets, whether it's other consumer goods that people are purchasing, for example, online across or ride shares across the board.

Uh so we are very excited about these two bills.

Thank you for your testimony today.

As are we, thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you, Speaker Menon.

You mentioned the private right of action.

I'm I want to dig in a little.

Do you think there's there's gonna be enough in the private legal market to do the investigations?

Like what what tools do you think they bring to the table why this is important to you?

I think this is a legitimate challenge.

I've heard this from uh the private bar.

But I'll I'll give you an example, Chair.

Um, the Washington Post, thanks to I believe New York state law disclosed recently that was in it was engaged in surveillance pricing to set subscription prices, a class action followed shortly thereafter.

Um I do think uh the private bar and ordinary consumers will find, you know, for example, maybe through other states' disclosure laws or otherwise, uh, maybe through uh requesting people's data, which you can do under many state laws, requesting your data from retailers.

The companies are engaged in this practice, and I do think that would allow consumers to protect their own interests through private litigation.

So uh so in some ways you think this will amplify the resources that the uh DCWP will have because they'll be incentivized in the private market to do the investigations that you mentioned, like Uber or Lyft, they could do investigations and have 10 people in a room to investigate.

Yeah, that's a great way of putting it.

These investigations are somewhat resource intensive.

I mean, they require you, they require you to do some experimentation.

Um, and I and I think that's right.

We, you know, we can do it at DCWP, but I think as a general matter, if you really want to ensure not only that consumers can get redress, but the companies take the legal obligations seriously, it's important to buttress administrative enforcement with private enforcement.

And so overall, you you said four lines for surveillance pricing?

Yeah.

And just so I'm clear, how many for dynamic pricing?

Eight total.

So for eight, nine, I do you want me to break down the that's fine.

It's eight in total.

Eight total.

And is that currently in your budget for the upcoming fiscal year?

It is not.

So, in addition to what you've already been allocated, you would think if this legislation was passed and the mayor to sign it in the next fiscal year, you would need these additional resources.

That's what I would anticipate, yes.

That's helpful.

Um, so have you and do you think there's a reason beyond what you've told the speaker that you haven't heard from consumers?

Do you think like consumers just assume that this is just the way it is and you just have to pay what you have to pay?

I think many consumers have become resigned to a world where I get a different price than Carlos, uh than chief of staff Carlos, uh, because of who we are and and and when you know when we're purchasing a good or service.

Uh, and maybe they just think that that's how the modern economy works.

But I really believe strongly that the people should decide how the economy works.

The people should decide what kind of practices they want to see.

Nobody asks for surveillance pricing, nobody wants this, nobody's looking for it.

There's polling on this.

Everyone hates it, Democrats, Republicans, whoever.

Um, New York City has an opportunity to say no to it, and I think we should.

Let me kind of dig into the discount issue.

You'll probably we'll probably hear from companies or organizations that represent industry that you know they use discounts as a tool, as some people might get a discount, and other people might not get a discount.

And so that might be related to surveillance or dynamic pricing, because if you're using Uber all the time, maybe you get a discount for using it versus someone else who never gets on it or the other way around.

How do you manage the discount issue in the context of surveillance and dynamic pricing?

Well, certainly, Chair, I'll start by saying the speaker's bill clearly protects discounts.

I think very clearly protects discounts.

I think one thing we would want to make sure of is A, if companies are using data to set discounts, the data should only be used to set discounts.

Research I did last year when I was working with Berkeley found that companies like McDonald's and Macy's were using discount data to make inferences about our intelligence, our ethnicity, and more.

I don't think we want a world like that.

I also don't think we want a world where these companies are selling data, for example, on ethnicity or intelligence to data brokers, data brokers that are in turn potentially selling data to ICE.

So I think it's very serious that we protect data while still allowing for discounts.

I would also just point out that consumer reports did a study this week that found, according to them, that Uber and Lyft were essentially engaging in fake discounting.

That you and I would be calling a ride from the same place, same point A, the same point B.

We get the same price, only I'm told I'm getting a 40% discount, and you're not told that.

What is a 40% discount mean if you and I are getting the same price for the same rights?

So we have to be on guard that we are protecting real discounts and not the kind of fake discounts that so many companies are turning to.

Great.

I know uh my colleagues here, so uh turn it over to Councilmember De La Rosa.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioner and team.

Thank you for being here.

And thank you for bringing up the important conversations around data brokers and um, you know, uh ICE.

It's an important uh issue for our communities.

I'm the tech chair here in the council, and so all things data are an important conversation for us to have at this moment.

I wanted to specifically ask you about electronic shelf labels in relation to surveillance pricing and the impact you all have seen, if any, on consumers.

Yeah, so when I started this job six months ago now, I asked that our inspectors add to their checklist whether grocery stores are engaging or using electronic shelf labels.

And in fact, we have found that a number of chains, um, let me just pull this out in case it's of interest, including Lidl, Aldi, ShopRite, and Food Bazaar, not at all their locations, but we are seeing the use of electronic shelf displays at these establishments in the city.

And we do have significant concerns around this.

We have significant concerns around the ability to change prices rapidly.

We have significant concerns, and I know this is uh a big issue on your committee of the ability for companies to combine electronic shelf labels with biometric surveillance to set individualized prices.

Uh, we have concern about what this will mean for our grocery workers.

Uh so we are seeing this practice grow in the city, and I think it merits more scrutiny.

Is there like what is the conversation?

If any, maybe it's not, you know, on this agency to do, but are there any conversations with um some of the chain owners, for example, some of these uh supermarkets you mentioned could be chains or franchises.

Has there been any conversation about the impact of the labels on their consumer base?

I've had some conversations just asking when I'm in meetings with grocery stores.

Most of the local groceries in New York, we do not think are using these labels and our these electronic labels and our inspections are backing that up.

One thing I do hear all the time though is that our smaller grocery stores feel severely disadvantaged relative to the big ones.

And guess what?

It's the big stores, it's the targets that I'm not I won't call out any in particular, but it's the big chains that are going to be able to implement these very sophisticated electronic shelf labels, not the corner bodegas.

I think that's gonna further disadvantage small businesses in the city.

And the labels are monitored, produced by companies, I imagine that are selling selling these products to um these big names.

What is the relation or what is our jurisdiction in terms of the city on these companies that are selling these products?

Well, I think you raise an excellent point, and this is exactly one of the areas that I think do require more scrutiny.

Who are these companies?

Are they handling the installation of these products?

Uh are they collecting real-time data on what prices companies are setting, which by the way could also facilitate collusion potentially among competitors.

Again, I'm not suggesting that, but these electronic shelf labels raise a lot of concern.

So your question on jurisdiction, I'm confident that if they're being used in the city of New York, regardless of where these companies are based, we would have jurisdiction.

But I think you're raising very important questions about the downstream impacts these labels could have.

Yeah, I'm certainly um, you know, as our city is confronting an affordability crisis, this is where consumers are hit.

So I'm certainly interested in continuing this conversation with you and your team.

Thank you.

We as well.

We'd be very pleased to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh, just a little quick question.

So I'm really concerned about educating the public once we pass these legisl these bills.

Like, so you're talking about having four lines.

I assume that's for investigations, not outreach and education.

Those two four lines.

No, actually we do have one line, I believe, for both bills, a community coordinator.

And what each wheelchair?

Yeah, I'm either one, Carl.

So what would the outreach look like to be able to educate?

I mean, eight and a half million people, how are we educating them on this?

Uh thank you very much for the question, Chair.

I think um there's different tech techniques I think we want to try and use.

There's there's always the in-person on the on the ground boots we have, and this additional line for each bill uh would supplement our existing team as well that does a lot of great work.

I think already this year they've done uh 600 or so or 600 plus events uh with New Yorkers.

I think we've also dynamically uh expanded our use of social media to engage with folks um to be um to capture kind of the the for New Yorkers, what government can do for them.

Um I think there's always a conversation too to have about um OTPS that could be used for marketing campaigns.

Um yeah, I think there's a lot of different toolbox tools and a toolbox we can use for this.

Absolutely, we you know a large immigrant immigrant population in New York, so you worry about how we you have access to talking to him, explaining to him these issues.

Obviously, every New Yorkers can would is impacted by this.

Yeah, I'm very I'm very happy that our community affairs team, I think we speak over six languages.

Um the agency itself has a uh vast language capacity, over 40 languages.

I think close to half of our agency speaks a language other than English.

Um so it's a lot of these resources that we always pull into for our reach events and um likewise our literature too, we we are very proactive about updating everything and to be in the in more than the top 10 languages of the city.

Right.

And then my last question, and I will turn it over to Councilmember Adabal.

Um, do you envision bringing in community-based organizations who might have the community connections and ties to be a partner in doing this outreach effort?

I think our our reach model is is it it re it requires close ties with our community-based organization partners.

We we do not have the capacity or ability to set up events by ourselves uh every week and day.

What we do is build ties with with folks, build trust, go to their meetings, go to their neighborhoods, and and talk to folks where they are.

Um that's that's our model, that's what's brought us success so far.

Thank you.

Uh good, Councilmember Alzheimer.

Thank you, Chair.

You're you asked part of my question, but um have you thought about uh possibly uh requiring these stores to post information about pricing and um if they have a concern or an issue that they should reach out to DCWP?

I think it's a very reasonable suggestion we can take back and look at.

Yeah, and I um I I kind of disagree with you that people are resigned to like having different pricing, like seeing folks at the checkout line and they say the price says this, and you're charging me.

It's like I I don't think so.

I think that there's just a lack of education.

Um a lot of people were, you know, as you said, don't have the ability to sit in a room and ask for an Uber or standing next to somebody and ask for an Uber that's gonna go to the same location and understand that the pricing is different for a variety of reasons.

Um, how do we educate consumers that this is happening?

Um, so that because it's hard to it's hard to know, right?

Well, I think I I I think you're right, council member.

I think the idea of putting signs so that people can file, know where to file complaints is a good one.

I will say though, that I remember a year and a half ago when I was at the Federal Trade Commission, we released a study on surveillance pricing.

Hardly anyone had heard of the term or the concept.

And now you have bills all over the country advancing to ban this practice.

New York State, of course, has a bill.

Now we have it in New York City.

There's been a ton of media coverage of this issue.

I think it is generating a lot of grassroots frustration.

So to your point, actually, I think I'm I'm cautiously optimistic that this issue is resonating so much.

I think I think I guess to distinguish what it's saying, I think people are upset about prices.

Maybe they've lost some faith in government's ability to address it.

I think this could be really a good antidote to that and and helping to restore confidence the government does have their back.

And I think to the commission's point earlier about perhaps the resignation that consumers might feel, I think that's also tied into perhaps in my experience the difference between consumers and workers in terms of solidarity.

When you're in a workspace with workers, you're able to live and experience a lot of the same moments together and build solidarity through that.

Consumers at times can be very isolated from those moments.

And you can be in a checkout line and see the price has changed on you or that your perhaps your coupon is not the same price that at the checkout aisle.

And it's a very individual experience in that moment, although with deep, deep frustration to your point, council member.

So I think you know, part of I think the the popular imagination of these of surveillance pricing coming up now as it is and dramatically moving the conversation to this point, I think is it it signifies a frustration from consumers to address this issue, and that we as government are ready to do as well.

And how uh I I really um I'm a little concerned about uh protecting workers that may either observe that this is happening in their, you know, place of employment, um, and just ensuring that you know, if they report that it's you know they're not retaliated against um, and that they're able to work with consumers to ensure that the pricing is fair without getting, you know, blowback from the employers.

I think that's an excellent point, and we should have further conversations, and this I think Chair Epstein brought up too.

How do we learn about violations?

With whistleblowers from inside the company is a great source of information we can explore how to facilitate that.

I would also just add, and I was having this conversation in the hallway, the other way this can impact workers is if a consumer's in a store and they see the price changing rapidly, who are they gonna yell at?

They're gonna yell at the workers on the floor when they're not the ones making the decisions about that pricing.

I think that's another issue uh intra 892 would would solve.

I think that's exactly right, Commissioner.

I also just add, we would always love to hear from any workers who want to file a complaint with us.

We'll always be happy to accept anonymous complaints, and those are the types of tips we can take in that may lead to an investigation or may lead to further scrutiny, and so it's always very valuable to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We're joined by council member Wilson, and I'll turn it over to him for questioning.

Thank you, Chair.

Hi there.

Good afternoon.

Uh to what ext you were speaking earlier about this happening at like the bigger uh bigger stores or bigger retailers, but to what extent is the dynamic in surveillance pricing already happening or being implemented outside of the the big the big guys?

It's a very good question, council member.

For us, the best source of data we have is based on our inspections.

We are not seeing electronic shelf labels at the smaller stores.

I uh, you know, we've seen them at some of the big chains.

Um, you know, with respect to surveillance pricing, it's possible.

I just I highly doubt it.

Um, right, g like we've all been to bodegas and corners, they're not collecting vast amounts of personal data on us, they're not retaining McKinsey to set their pricing strategy.

Um it's just a very different shopping experience when you're at a corner store than when you're at Walmart.

And the companies that that do have these practices, are are they hiring third parties to facilitate this or um or are they being facilitated in-house?

My understanding, which is not sort of I don't want to be definitive about this, but based on my observations, there let me put it to you this way.

There are a lot of third-party companies, consultancies marketing pricing, pricing strategy services to companies.

The study we did at the FTC looked at eight of these pricing consultancies uh and found that they were offering surveillance pricing services to more than 250 companies across a wide range of industries.

So, yes, there's an industry developing around helping companies develop these pricing strategies.

So then what what privacy rights do consumers currently have when it comes to protections against the aspects of their identity that, you know, or activities that are being used towards a dynamic pricing, you know, especially if it's with uh, you know, another third-party company.

I'm sorry, Consumer.

Do you say privacy rights or risks?

Rights.

Rights.

Uh I'm very concerned about that.

New York State does not have a comprehensive privacy law, unlike many, I think more than 20 states right now.

Companies I've researched this as well, are collecting vast amounts of data on us.

They're making inferences about our family dynamics, our income, our ethnicity, our intelligence.

There are virtually no restrictions that I know of in the state uh around the ability of these firms to sell data to data brokers.

Um, I think they're huge privacy concerns that, and that's why I said uh in my opening remarks that this testimony is very much about affordability, excuse me, this legislation is very much about affordability, but it's also about protecting privacy.

And we know there's the New York state law.

What um are there other examples across the country uh that have been successful in in tackling the dynamic?

Have there been other bans to look at?

Um, and Andy can jump in if I'm missing.

Maryland just passed a ban on uh dynamic pricing grocery stores.

I think that bill has very significant problems that I would not recommend it for New York City.

Um the governor of Colorado recently vetoed a surveillance pricing ban, regrettably, in my opinion.

Um, but I I think New York City would be the first city to take on these practices.

Yeah, I think that's right.

And just to add to that, I think Connecticut may also have moved some uh uh bills into law on surveillance pricing.

I think we are hopeful to work with council on making sure that this law is the best version out there.

Um we think the New York approach is also really great, and and think that we can work uh and have those two bills work very harmoniously together.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh not hearing any other questions, uh thank you for your time.

We look forward to all your edits on the bill and look forward to further collaboration.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Have a lovely day.

And we'll see you tomorrow watching the game, watching the parade, right?

Absolutely.

All right.

Uh now I will bring up Jared Hova from the New York State Attorney General's office.

Nikki Cateman, who's in person, and then we have two people on Zoom, Debbie Wright and Jeremy Espinosa.

So now we're I'm opening the hearing for public testimony.

I remind the public that it is a formal government procedure, and we asked people to maintain decorum.

Uh the witness tables reserved for witnesses here.

Shouldn't be video recording or other people at the witness table.

If you wish to testify, please fill out the form with the sergeant at arms and wait to be recognized.

You'll have two minutes to speak today.

And we're talking about bills 891 and 892.

Uh we're having a hearing later in the day on uh 813, it starts at one o'clock.

If you have testimony you want to submit, please submit it in writing.

And we'll start with the people before us.

Uh Jared, uh we'll start with you.

Thank you, Chair Epstein.

Good morning, Chair Epstein, members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection.

My name is Jared Hova.

I am a senior advisor to Attorney General Letitia James in the Office of the Attorney General.

On behalf of A.G.

James, I'd like to thank Speaker Menon, Chair Epstein, and this committee for inviting our office to testify at today's hearing.

On a personal note, Chair Epstein, it's great to see you and work with you in your new role.

Apologies if I accidentally call you assemblyman.

So I'm gonna start very quickly because I don't want to waste too much time.

Uh, just speaking briefly about the AG's work protecting consumers.

Umong our most significant responsibilities is our work protecting consumers from fraud in the physical and online marketplaces.

That work is conducted through two bureaus, the Consumer Frauds Bureau and the Bureau of Internet and Technology.

Together, these bureaus enforce New York State's prohibition on unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices and safeguard consumer privacy.

Um since Attorney General James took office, these bureaus have put billions of dollars back into the pockets of hardworking New York consumers and small businesses.

I'd like to move ahead to our concerns with surveillance pricing.

Um, as the state agency primarily responsible for protecting New York consumers, OEG views surveillance pricing as a direct and meaningful threat to the affordability crisis facing New Yorkers today.

We support the state's current law requiring companies to disclose to consumers if and when they use surveillance pricing.

That said, we have serious concerns about the practice and believe that an outright ban on the practice is the best way to protect consumers and lower prices.

As Speaker Menon indicated earlier, one of the challenges about a simple disclosure law is that consumers don't actually know if they are being subject to surveillance pricing, and so the law has limited utility.

We support Intro 9 891 and the council's efforts to ban surveillance pricing in the city of New York.

To start, it is helpful to define the practice of surveillance pricing, which at bottom is the practice of setting or adjusting prices based on an individual's personal information.

Wow, that was fast.

That as you've already heard, we were successful in passing.

So I'm gonna fast forward to page three of the testimony.

So engaging with state uh I want to emphasize the importance of engaging with stakeholders because I think that those conversations have been extraordinarily enriching and learning about where concerns exist and sort of holding the bill up against those concerns, because in many cases, you know, I've said this uh I've said this to a lot of folks, you know, the the discounts that we are hearing about existed before the internet allowed us to accumulate immense amounts of data on individual consumers.

They can continue to exist without us using those immense numbers of points of data, and there's no reason why a bill that prohibits surveillance pricing can't also allow the same discounts that we've all come to expect before the age of the internet and today.

So, and and I want to talk a little bit about the use of the term discount.

So if we're not careful, the term discount can be hollowed out and misleading.

When consumers each pay a different price for a product while all being told that their unique individualized price is a discount, then the term lose the term discount loses its meaning, and many of those customers are being misled.

This is especially true if companies adjust their nominally discounted pricing based on consumers' personal information.

One of the things that we know that companies are able to do is to identify folks who are more likely, more impulsive, and more likely to pay a higher rate.

And so, in so doing, what you can do is set a higher rate for a product than maybe even what you thought you were gonna charge across the board, and then anything below that amount can be considered a discount, irrespective of whether or not it's actually discounted from where the company had intended what the company had intended to charge.

Um then the second point that I want to make is just that um the vast majority of the discounts that consumers know and expect from retailers and others do not constitute surveillance pricing.

In collaboration with the bill's sponsors, we met with dozens of businesses and industry groups.

Those meetings were instructive in helping us to understand the specific conduct that different industries were concerned might be impacted by a surveillance pricing ban.

These conversations underscored that a significant number of discounts would not be impacted by the state, or that we could fine-tune the bill to address those concerns while preserving the central goal of the legislation.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our input with this committee, and I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you.

Ed Kate.

Good morning, uh Chair Epstein and the members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection.

My name is Nikki Cateman.

I'm with Local 338 RWDSU UFCW.

We represent more than 13,000 working people across New York State employed in a wide range of industries, including grocery and food retail, retail drug stores, healthcare human services, cannabis, agriculture, and transportation.

Our members experience the impact of rising grocery prices every day, not only as consumers themselves, but also as the workers who interact directly with the shoppers and witness firsthand the challenges families face when trying to afford basic necessities.

On behalf of local 338 R members, I am here today to discuss our concerns regarding intros 891 and 892.

We believe both bills are a positive step towards strengthening consumer protection and increasing price transparency.

However, in both current forms, the bills contain loopholes that could undermine its intent.

Before discussing these concerns, I would like to thank Speaker Menon, Chair Epstein, Councilmember Abreu, and your respective staffs for meeting with us prior to today, listening to our feedback and reviewing the amendments we've shared.

Regarding intro 891, one of our primary concerns is that the bill does not address the collection use or seller of customer data.

As drafted, the legislation is silent on the consumer protection issues that can arise from loyalty programs and extensive data collection that often accompanies it.

Very similar to what Jarrett shared.

While loyalty programs can provide legitimate discounts, they can also serve as a backdoor to surveillance pricing when retailers use customer data to price to individual shoppers.

This addition is essential to ensure that loyalty programs remain transparent and fair while preventing the use of personal data to create individualized pricing that undermines consumer protections.

Even without advanced AI or surveillance tools, businesses already have extensive ability to analyze consumer behavior, including spending habit patterns tied to benefit cycles, seasonal demand, and external factors.

This legislation should be structured to minimize pathways towards surveillance-based pricing.

I promise I'll be quick.

Regarding intro 892, we believe it's important to address technology that can facilitate these pricing practices in brick and mortar stores.

Electronic shelf tags make it significantly easier to change prices quickly and often.

Traditional shelf labels serve as a safeguard by creating friction around constant price changes and helping ensure prices remain consistent for consumers.

Businesses already know consumer shopping patterns, including when pension checks hits, when SNAP benefits are replenished, and when demand spike due to predicted weather patterns like a snowstorm.

The goal should be to minimize pathways to greedflation and limit opportunities for rapid and data-driven price increases that harm consumers.

This is a worker contact protection component to both bills.

When consumers experience unexpected price changes, their anger and frustration is often directed to frontline retail workers, our members.

Appreciate you all so much for the time and your willingness to continue the conversations on this, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

And I know on Zoom we I'll start with Debbie Wright.

Can you unmute her?

You may begin.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Deborah Wright, and I am the National Political Director for the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, RWDSU.

In New York State alone, we represent over 40,000 workers.

First, I want to commend the New York City Council for recognizing the serious risk that surveillance and dynamic pricing pose to consumers.

These introductions are an important first step in addressing these issues at a time when the affordability crisis facing New Yorkers and families across the state and the country continue to worsen.

With stronger and more carefully drafted legislation, New York City can become the first major municipality in the United States to protect consumers from these deceptive and harmful practices.

I submitted lengthy testimony and I will do my best to summarize it very quickly.

First, intro 891 addresses individualized pricing, but not the data collection practices that make it possible.

As noted many times this morning, retailers collect vast amounts of consumer information through loyalty programs, mobile apps, digital coupons, purchase histories, and third-party data brokers.

If the council wants to stop surveillance pricing, it must address the collection and use of consumer data that enables it.

Second, loyalty programs should not become a loophole.

Consumers expect loyalty discounts that are offered uniformally to everyone who participates.

What consumers do not expect is for retailers to use personal data to determine different prices for different shoppers.

The bill should clearly preserve legitimate loyalty discount while prohibiting individualized pricing based on consumer data.

Third, the council should prohibit the use of electronic shelf labels.

As the speaker mentioned, EFL allow retailers to change pricings instantaneously across entire stores through centralized digitalized systems.

They create the infrastructure necessary by dynamic and surge pricing in brick and mortar stores.

Without banning them, EFL could undermine the consumer protection these bills are intended to provide.

Four times expired.

This cannot be mentioned enough.

Worker impact should not be overlooked.

Frontline retail workers will bear the burden of customer frustration over confusing or rapidly changing prices.

Finally, we also support stronger enforcement and transparency measures as needed.

We would also support adding a private right of action.

We thank the council for meeting with us ahead of time of this hearing to listen to our concerns and also for giving us the chance to provide amendments to this bill.

We look forward to continuing to working with the council to ensure these bills provide meaningful protections for consumers and workers alike.

Thank you.

And I will now welcome any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

And let me turn it over to Jeremy Espinosa.

Jeremy, we'll unmute you.

Perfect.

Thank you.

My name is Jeremy Espinosa.

I'm legislative representative for UFCW International.

And UFCW represents 45,000 hard working members across the five boroughs of the city.

And we appreciate the intent of these proposals and believe they represent a positive step towards strengthening consumer protections.

Certainly want to thank Speaker Menon, Chair Epstein, Council Member Brayou, and their team for their engagement and responsiveness so far throughout this process.

Just a couple of considerations for intro 891 that could strengthen it, particularly around loyalty programs.

These can be a tool for corporate abuse, because they can be a backdoor to surveillance pricing through their ability to collect data on consumers.

We believe that this bill should clearly state that differential pricing through loyalty programs is only permissible when discounts are uniform and available equally to all program members rather than tailoring them to individuals based on personal data or purchasing history.

Like the commissioner mentioned on coupons, um these can be troubling for uh for consumer protection because a company could artificially inflate the price of an item and then offer a coupon that sets the price higher than where it was originally set.

Um we would encourage um everyone to take a look around this language.

Um on intro 892, um, we believe this bill is too permissive and it must be amended to ban ESL's electronic shelf labels.

So because laws that prohibit the practice of price gouging, but not the technology that makes it possible, creates loopholes that companies can easily exploit.

ESLs are the infrastructure that allows for predatory and surge pricing, even with a ban on surveillance pricing and dynamic pricing, you can still serve the prices on a day when you know snap checks get distributed or on a day when you know pension checks are distributed.

Uh we so I'll simply I'll wrap it up then.

Um, want to just thank everyone for their time.

Um we support uh working in with the council on 891 and hope that we can amend 892 to correct it for consumers and workers.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Um just to the Attorney General's office, just on the private right of action.

We've heard a little bit about that today.

I'm wondering kind of where your office thinks on that.

Um, where you would support amending the bill to include a private right of action.

I mean, as far as we're concerned, we wouldn't object to it.

We understand that there are complicated politics associated with it, and it, you know, certainly wouldn't affect our uh our enforcement authority and wouldn't have any concerns with it, but also understand that there are challenges associated with it.

And thank you.

And and we heard from the commissioner from uh DCWP of the coordination from the attorney general side.

Um there concerns around the coordination over this between your office and their office.

No, I actually think that there's a lot of synergy between our offices.

I think that you know, if you look at DCWP and the amount of um enforcement officers that they have and the types of inspections that they do, I think that's an area where the OEG does not necessarily have staff and is not able to necessarily do that level of enforcement, and so I think that um coordination between the two agencies could work really well.

We already speak with a lot of frequency, have a lot of common goals, um, and so I think that that would work really well.

And it's just fine.

Just my uh just so I'm clear about um how you're gonna be able to do investigations on the state law, assuming the governor signs it.

What resources do you have?

How do you I mean we we've heard from DCWP there aren't a lot of there are no complaints, people don't know it's a problem, and even if the state law gets signed and we pass these bills, what's the role of the attorney general's office in doing that kind of consumer education?

Are you saying consumer education or enforcement?

Well, I would start with education because you have to have a case to enforce and yeah, and maybe we could do both.

Yeah, I mean, in terms of consumer education, I think we'd have to be creative about it and you know make use of maybe non-traditional means of um connecting with consumers and making sure that they're aware of what their rights are.

Um I also think to some extent, you know, that we might have to, because of the inability generally of consumers to recognize when they're being subject to surveillance pricing.

I think that in in all likelihood we'd have to rely on different means for uh determining when it is or is not happening.

And I think that those are, you know, the AG's office has some tools to address that, although generally we are an office that's based on um consumer complaints.

We follow cases based on where we get complaints.

I think in circumstances where they're harder to and harder to ascertain.

I think we've got tools that can address that.

Great, thank you.

And just uh, you know, I've heard from now a different bunch of unions to about um strengthening the bill and better coordination.

Um I know we've talked and I know you've spoken to both both sponsors.

Uh what is your highest priority in kind of changes?

What would be the most important thing you'd see?

I know we talked a little bit about private right of action.

Is that the top priority?

I know we've heard about loopholes that in 892.

I'm just I don't know, Nikki or folks on Zoom, whatever one wants to respond.

I I don't want to speak on behalf of my colleagues at the RWDSU or UFCW, but I think for local 338, um, as an organization, I think banning electronic shelf labels is probably our top priority, both in terms of consumer fairness, because again, you remove surveillance pricing, you remove data collection, businesses know consumer trends.

You've been if you've been a store manager for five minutes, you know that uh if it's gonna be a heat wave, people are gonna buy certain things, right?

Um so I think for us, electronic shelf labels would be it, both in terms of consumer protection, but also what we've already heard about worker protections in terms of what they're experiencing interacting with consumers, uh, but also recognizing, right, that um these are jobs that people do currently.

Yeah, I mean, I would just say, you know, I I would echo uh what my colleague, you know, Ms.

Cateman just said about electronic shelf label.

We cannot stress enough that they are the conduit through which anything, surveillance pricing, dynamic pricing, surge pricing will be possible.

Even if you try to regulate it, if you have electronic shelf label in stores, they will get around it.

This is why the bigger corporations, even some of your smaller grocery stores now too, but the bigger corporations are investing millions in even patents at this point, in terms of not only the hardware themselves, but also software applications to basically get around any type of legislation that is put in place to try and stop surveillance pricing or dynamic pricing.

That hardware, because it allows them to instantaneously change those prices door-wide on every single item that they are selling, not even just one, but multiple multiple times per day, they will still be able to do that.

The other thing we do want to stress is that we worked very hard with the attorney general's office on the package of bills that were introduced in the state legislature this past session.

We work very hard in making sure that the definitions, especially around personal data, the discount programs, the loyalty programs, bona fide discount programs were as strong as possible as you can make them.

I think that also is the second priority here for these bills to make sure that consumers are actually protected in the way that the council intends, without actually strengthening those definitions and adding in the additional ban for electronic self-labels.

Unfortunately, these bills are not going to do what you're intending them to do.

Thank you all.

Um, and I uh want to thank you all for testifying and um looking forward to following up with you all on these these important pieces of legislation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

All right, we'll turn to uh Council Member Ose was here.

I want to acknowledge his presence.

I'm no he's had to run in or run out.

Uh the next panel is Jabari Cooper, Kelsey Dorado, Bob Borski, Matt Henning, and on Zoom we have Nikki Franzetti and Lisa Sorin.

And I guess Jabari would start.

Good afternoon, Chair Epstein and members of the committee.

My name is Jabara Cooper, Director of State and Local Government Relations for the Northeast at Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association supporting public policies to build a more affordable and inclusive society in which all people benefit from technological advances.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

We share the council and mayor's concern about affordability and agree that consumers should never be charged higher prices based on their personal data.

However, A91 goes a little bit far beyond preventing that practice and would instead eliminate many discounts, coupons, rewards, and targeted promotions already received by New Yorkers.

We believe that the bill's definitions are too broad, and this is why personalized discounts would be banned.

Specifically, the bill does not distinguish between using data to raise prices and using data to lower prices through discounts.

Both would be treated the same.

The elimination of discounts feels incongruent with the lives led by lives led by everyday New Yorkers, where wages are stagnating but prices continue to rise.

In addition, Albany recently passed a similar surveillance pricing bill that now awaits action by the governor.

Confusingly, though, the two measures are already diverge in meaningful ways, including which discounts they exempt, so the same promotion could be lawful under one and prohibited under another.

The benefit of the city passing a law on this issue after the state finalizes its own includes not just reducing regulatory confusion, but providing the city the opportunity to add a stronger protections that the state's bill that from the state's bill that the council believes could benefit consumers.

Again, the Chamber of Progress supports supports banning the use of personal data to increase prices and advises against eliminating the use of personal data to allow individual New Yorkers to save money from bona fide discounts offered by e-commerce retailers.

We look forward to working with you all on this important issue, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you very much.

And Kelsey.

Specific examples of discounts that would be prohibited include but are not limited to discounts based on purchase history, discounts based on a wish list or registry, and cart abandonment discounts.

For the discounts that are expressly permitted, merchants would be required to clearly and prominently disclose pricing policies in a manner that an ordinary consumer would notice and understand.

In practice, this means publicly posting sensitive business information that would then be available to competitors.

To be clear, our position on the bill does not distract from the valid affordability concerns in New York.

While businesses large and small continue to compete fairly in today's economy, recent price increases are a direct result of several external factors, including tariffs, inflation, shipping, and raw material costs.

An outright prohibition on certain price discounts, coupons, and promotions would exacerbate the affordability challenges facing New York residents rather than provide meaningful solutions.

Shoppers today have considerable tools and data at their disposal.

They're now able to compare prices in real time and make an informed purchase based on price quality, brand loyalty, and service.

As a result, there's far more incentives for retailers to reduce prices as they compete for each customer.

Finally, I do want to echo the progress that has been made at the state, and we believe that enacting a local law in advance of finalized legislation at the state level risk creating a patchwork of conflicting obligations for retailers that invest in New York City and in New York State.

We urge the city council to allow the state process to proceed before adopting a local standard, and we pledge to remain constructive throughout the legislative process.

Thank you so much for your time.

Okay, Matt.

Thank you, Speaker Menon, Chair Epstein, and committee members for having me today.

My name is Matt Henning, and I'm the director of government affairs at Tech NYC.

While Tech NYC agrees there is a need to protect consumers from predatory or discriminatory price increases resulting from the use of personal data.

We respectfully express concerns on introductions 891 and 892 as currently drafted.

As the one fair price act awaits action from Governor Hochel at the state level, tech NYC recommends the council reviews that bill's final provisions before advancing intro 891.

That bill directly addresses the same core concern: the use of personal data to manipulate prices charged to individual consumers.

However, the council risks creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations that businesses must comply with by potentially act enacting a different law than the state's.

Tech NYC's core concern is that intro 891 captures not only instances where personal data is used to charge a consumer a higher price, but also captures instances where data is used to charge consumer less.

While 891 does include some carve outs for loyalty programs and publicly disclosed discounts, the bill and these provisions as currently drafted would still prohibit certain personalized discounts and targeted promotions that New Yorkers benefit from.

Colorado's governor, a Democrat, recently vetoed a nearly identical bill stating that it would result in unintended consequences on lowered prices, not just higher prices.

Maryland's recently enacted protection from predatory pricing act offers a strong model to follow, banning the practice of setting a personalized price for a good or service that is higher, setting a personalized price for a good or service that is unique to a consumer and higher than it would otherwise be based on their personal data.

Regarding intro 892, Tech NYC shares concerns also raised by other stakeholders about the absence of an exception for legitimate cost changes due to supply chains disruptions, weather events, or other circumstances outside of retailers' control, all of which are recognized by New York State's existing price gouging regulations.

We very much appreciate your consideration and have submitted a longer and more detailed testimony outlining our positions, which you are happy to continue working with you and the council on.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

So, Nikki, I think you're on Zoom.

You may begin.

Thank you for holding this hearing today.

I'm Nikki Franzita, Vice President of the Hotel Association of New York City, also known as HANIC.

We are here to testify about Intro 891, which bans the use of surveillance pricing.

While we respect the council's desire to protect consumers from predatory practices, this bill inadvertently prevents consumers from benefiting from major perks provided by hotels.

The primary issue is that the exemptions are contingent upon being uniformly made available to all consumers.

This effectively makes rewards programs illegal.

Benefits for rewards program members increase as those members show greater loyalty to a particular brand.

By their very nature, rewards programs are not uniformly made available.

As currently written, consumers would be unable to accrue or use rewards program benefits in New York City.

The results of this would be catastrophic for the hotel industry, as many travelers will avoid traveling to our city if they can't use their rewards program benefits.

Aside from rewards programs, the uniformly made available provision also prevents consumers from benefiting from personalized discounts.

These types of discounts require knowing a customer's voluntarily provided personal information.

For instance, hotels often provide guests with discounts for special occasions such as birthdays.

Since not every guest shares the same birthday, this type of discount would be illegal.

This bill fails to take into account the nature of loyalty programs existing in the hotel industry.

In addition to the requirement to provide uniform discounts to all customers, the legislation does not provide the ability to afford tailored discounts based on a particular customer's profile.

Such circumstances should be addressed as this discussion proceeds.

We appreciate that the speaker's staff has been very receptive to addressing these unintended consequences.

In our written testimony, we provided specific language changes to address these issues.

As this bill is amended, HANIC will continue to be a resource for the council.

Again, thank you for your time and for the opportunity to testify today.

Right, and I think Lisa Soren, you're you're on Zoom as well.

You may be good.

I am here.

For small businesses, tiered loyalty programs are essential survival tools to retain customers and stay competitive if uniform pricing rules force businesses to give the exact same discounts to the first-time walk-ins or lifetime loyal customers, these vital reward models become unworkable.

This ultimately hurts both the shopper and the shopkeepers and the consumers.

The chamber urges a council to amend this language to explicitly protect all forms of loyalty and reward programs.

We want to work collaboratively with you to ensure clear guidance that avoids costly compliance challenges.

Thank you for your continued partnership and the opportunity testify today.

Thank you.

Can I ask this panel?

We heard earlier examples of like 10 people sitting in a room all ordering an Uber or Lyft at the same time and having 10 different prices.

Do you do we do you all think that process should continue?

Is that an appropriate loyalty or discounted approach, or do you feel like something like that is something we should be regulating or legislating around?

I think it's important to uh kind of draw distinction between dynamic pricing and surveillance pricing.

Dynamic pricing can take into account, you know, location, um uh fees or tolls for an Uber trip.

All those are all factors that are valid reasons that a price may differ.

Whereas uh surveillance pricing or we're thinking of as using personal data um to increase the price that are based on factors that are not necessarily impacting the cost of the service uniformly across the consumer base.

So I think in certain instances of what you described in the watch sharing um example, does need to be addressed, but there's also some conflation between uh appropriate dynamic pricing that is necessary for these ridesharing companies and inappropriate use of surveillance pricing.

So circumstances, so if it's a rainy day, prices could be higher, but prices could be higher for everyone.

But you're if are you saying the individualized person, we're all you know, four of us sitting in a room, we're all ordering an Uber to the same location from the same location.

Is there a value to have uniformity in that price that people are being offered, or you feel like it's okay?

Maybe to have everyone to be offered a different price in that moment from the same location to the same location.

I think in the example of multiple people sitting in the exact same location looking for the exact same ride.

I mean, it that there is value in what you described.

However, in a lot of these instances and the ride sharing examples specifically, as I mentioned, there are a lot of factors that do increase the cost of a ride uniformly to all to all uh consumers that need to be accounted for.

Sure, like if you're going to the congestion zone or if you're going further distances, but under my fact pattern, we're all doing the same thing at the same time.

We're all, you know, taking that cab.

Um so I don't want to so it sounds like you feel like there's some regulations that should happen in that context.

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

No, and I I will reiterate what I said in my testimony, we would certainly support legislation that prohibits using surveillance pricing to increase the price for certain consumers based on their personal data.

So you know, and if we're going, I don't want to speak too much on the ride share example because I don't we're retailers, so I I won't I won't opine on that, but we would certainly support legislation specific to increase prices.

Our concern comes to the discounts.

So if in a retail perspective, um I want to focus on the past purchase history a little bit, I think because that's probably one of the most beneficial discounts that consumers are going to receive because it's based on things that they have actually bought previously.

If you buy the example I always give is shampoo, if you buy the exact shampoo once a month and I give you a discount for that, I don't want a discount for a different shampoo because this is the one that I always buy.

So I think if in that specific example, with the ride shares, I guess, if you're always going to the exact location, if you're always doing the same thing over and over again, a discount for that type of behavior, I do not think we do not think should be covered by this type of legislation.

I think that's an important distinction to make.

So in the retail context, the discount example is you I live across the street from a key food.

They have a you know, one of those, you know, apps or cards, you go in, you spend three hundred dollars in a month you get some discount of 10% off, or $500 you get another percent discount.

You want to preserve that opportunity for that individual, versus uh little Sarah who never shops there and now is but the price that we're both paying on the shelf is the same price.

I might just get $10 off because I I'm a repeat customer.

That's what you're trying to preserve.

Yes, we are not looking to change the reference price to kind of go with the New York State language that use reference price.

So when we're talking about discounts, everyone is looking at the exact same reference price.

The discount that you receive could be based on a variety of things.

It could be a uniformly offered discount, it could be a personalized discount, but if we're lowering the price um correctly, I w you know we can get into the misleading discounts because I know that conversation has come up a little bit, but if the reference price remains the same for everyone and certain people are getting a discount based on voluntarily provided data or behavior, we believe that should be uh preserved under this bill.

So assuming none of us sign up for a loyalty program, we should all be paying the same price.

Because there's no loyalty, like because I'm not signing up for the loyalty program, I'm not in a in a uh I'll make a hotel, a Hilton hotel, I'm not getting the rewards.

I'm just a regular Joe Schmo coming off the street, wanting to go to a uh store and buy something.

Assuming that that price should always be the same for everyone walking in, the only question is because some loyalty program you would like to individualize that discount based on your usage and volume.

I don't want to be specific to loyalty programs because there are discounts that, and they are um not included in this bill, but for veterans, teachers, students, there are other discounts that exist.

So I don't I don't want to specifically say the only exemption should be loyalty programs.

So it could be all veterans get a 10% or all I my district has NYU.

NY every NYU student gets a 10% off if they show their NYU ID.

Sure.

There's that piece.

Correct.

And those are exempt under this bill.

Yeah.

So that's you want those as well as those discounts.

But assuming there's a the there's a floor where everyone's that price is never changing.

It's not changing, I'm not paying $8.99 and she walks in 10 minutes later, it's 999 for the same price without a discount.

Correct.

So that's that everyone saying that here.

Kelsey mentioned that we would be supportive of a bill that does ban um inappropriate price increases resulting from surve surveillance pricing.

And further in in Maryland, they did take that approach.

And with the surveillance pricing bills, it seems like a lot of people have the same intent about, you know, surveillance pricing, but the devil's in the details with the language.

So if the language and the provisions, you know, are correct, then you know, don't uh unfairly eliminate discounts and um harm the affordability agenda.

I think um a lot of industry opposition would be removed.

And so do you think um the discount is based on some loyalty program versus a discount based on surveillance?

Do you see that differently?

Like if because you could be using surveillance to determine, hey, you know, we heard the example your battery is low and we're gonna maybe you price might change for that, or the discount might be because your heart rate goes up, and we're evaluating the conditions or your anxiety, you come back three times, so the prices may discount because of that.

Are you f in that case scenario?

Are you looking that a discount could be put into place based on surveillance versus a discount placed on some other criteria?

I think I'd want to differentiate a little bit between surveillance and like voluntarily provided data.

Okay.

I think that is important because one of the other discounts that we have talked about in the state conversation, um, is like a browsing discount, and I want to be very clear when I'm talking about a discount for based on browsing history, I'm talking about somebody's personal website.

So a company's personal website, not general internet browsing history.

Um and similar to that is a cart abandonment discount.

If you are clicking on the same product 10 times, if you are putting something in your cart, we may offer you a 10% discount to purchase something that's in your cart.

Um that's a pretty standard practice that has existed for a while.

It also existed prior to the internet when a sales associate would see someone browsing and keep coming back to the exact same shirt, put it in their physical shopping car, and then put it back.

You know, that's kind of this is the 2026 version of that type of practice.

Um, and that is outside of a loyalty program.

So, you know, but I do want to make sure we kind of differentiate between lower batteries and heart rate monitoring versus kind of data that's provided voluntarily by a consumer because I do think those are two different things.

Uh okay, I think I hear that distinction that if I make it, I go to Home Depot and I'm looking at uh whatever I'm looking at, and I put in my carp and I leave it there and I take it out and then put it back in.

At some point, Home Depot's like they really want to buy this, but maybe if it was a hundred dollars cheaper, they might actually buy it.

So I'm gonna offer that to you to buy it for that cheaper price.

You're saying that level of surveillance through the direct app, not through social media or other tools.

That's something's important you think for business for the business model.

Yes.

Okay.

Does anybody do the real?

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that everyone in the room and people on Zoom don't have a different perspective?

I just want to turn over the folks on Zoom, making sure that what we're saying here in the room is consistent with what we're hearing, at least I uh from the chamber.

Um, like I don't know if that if that's what you're hearing is consistent with what we're saying here.

Absolutely.

Coming from the bronze chamber, that's exactly what we're saying.

The word uniformly actually harms the whole process, but it's exactly what we're saying.

Reward programs, loyalty programs, all of that needs to be protected, not only for the consumers, but most important for our small businesses.

So thank you for that.

I want to turn it over to Councilmember Audiball.

I think she's got some questions.

Yeah, I think um I just I'm I hear what you're saying that there's a difference between, I mean, there's a there is a difference between using I guess purchasing data, you know, purchasing habits uh to provide discounts versus using personal data to either raise or lower lower prices, and I think that's that's the concern here, the use of personal data, you know, race, gender, income, you know, all of that um to then determine different pricing for different people.

Um, and so how can we ensure that these programs, whether it's loyalty programs, discount programs, are transparent and fair, and are not using that level of personal data.

So I would first like to say that there are federal and state laws that prohibit companies from charging individuals different prices based on protected class data.

In New York State, just to give one example, in New York State it is illegal to charge someone a different price based on their gender.

Um that was something that happened a couple of years ago.

So this there is already activity and settled law in that type of space based on protected class data, race, gender, sexual orientation, um, you know, etc.

So I think there we we we do have some stuff in statute already.

Um I do want to kind of give another example of a discount that would be impacted by this bill that combines personal data and purchase history because I do think this goes farther than just purchase history.

Um I mentioned in my testimony registries, so you know, in full disclosure, I'm currently pregnant.

I have about three baby registries that people have bought stuff for me on.

Um, thank you.

I didn't mention it for the congrats, but I appreciate it.

Um, you know, those types of registries, you typically are gonna get a completion discount.

So you're gonna get 10, 15, 20% off whatever is left unpurchased on that registry.

That is not only based on my purchase history, it's based on the history of anyone who was purchased from my list.

It's also based on my due date, which is personal data that I voluntarily provided to the retailer to get that type of discount because you get it, you know, six to eight weeks prior to your due date.

So when we're talking about this type of surveillance pricing, I it is really important that we don't try to nitpick or differentiate discounts in particular because we're always going to leave some out and we're always going to forget some, which I think is why you know the folks here with me really want to focus on a bill that's going to prohibit using surveillance pricing to increase a price for a specific consumer based on their personal data, Kenneth.

How do we prevent so I go on uh I don't know whether it's uh hotel or go to a store?

How do we prevent the price when I go in day one that I'm looking at it, it's you know, 400, but then I go back two days later it's 450, and then it's 500, and then allegedly I'm getting a discount because this goes back down to 400.

How do we avoid that behavior?

And because I think what we're worried about is consumers' interest in something could result in a change in price, and then an alleged discount later, which is in some ways, you know, not a real discount.

I think what's important there, which um we've seen in some other bills across the country and at the state bill that just passed, is getting the definition and concept of a reference price correct so that you can base um what's a higher price, what's the lower price off that reference price, because without a baseline price, you know, the the baseline price could be artificially increased to uh offer a you know a misleading discount, but if in state state or city law there is a um a clear and solid definition of reference price, you can use that reference price to determine what is um a higher price, what is lower price, and what is a misleading discount.

I would also add that there are existing FTC guidelines on misleading discounts that would address this type of concern.

Alright, thank you.

Um I think we have no further questions, so thank you all for your time.

We really appreciate it.

I'll bring up our next panel, which is uh Alexander Gleason, Mayu Tubin Mayahi and Kristen McManus and Lee Heppner, both on Zoom.

And as we settle in, we'll start with Alex.

Good morning.

My name is Alexander Gleason.

I'm the policy and campaigns director at the New York City Central Labor Council, AFL CIO.

The New York City Central Labor Council appreciates the council's attention to surveillance pricing and electronic pricing systems.

Working families are already dealing with rapidly rising costs of living.

They should not also have to worry about their personal data influencing the price they pay for a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk.

At a time like this, the government has an important role to play in taking decisive action to ensure transparency and consumer protection.

We're here in solidarity with our affiliates in the retail and grocery industry.

Their members work every day in pharmacies, grocery stores, and retail shops, seeing firsthand the issues reported in the media.

Members in the retail trades see firsthand how new technologies affect stores, workers, and shopping patterns.

Too often, when introduced, these technologies reduce staffing, shift risks on to frontline workers, and weaken accountability for large corporations, while the promised savings and consumer protections fail to materialize.

Intro number 891 and intro number 892 identify real problems.

The CLC believes changes should be made to strengthen these bills and align them with the broader statewide approach advanced in the consumer protecting consumers and jobs from discriminatory pricing act and championed by our affiliates, including the RWDSU and the UFCW.

Grocery chains, pharmacy chains, online platforms, and major retailers operate across municipal lines, and the rules should be clear and consistent across New York State, so consumers are protected everywhere.

The state legislation recognizes a critical point that it is not only a consumer protection issue, it's a worker protection issue.

Surveillance pricing, dynamic pricing, electric shelf labels, they're all part of a broad industry transformation.

Left unchecked, they can lead to a context where rapid automation is falsely marketed as the only logical solution to the problems facing the industry.

The council should also consider using this time to examine the broader impact, thank you, of technological shifts and self-checkout more specifically.

Market it as convenience, that technology also means fewer staffed registers, reduced hours, more customer conflict, and more theft.

Given such challenges, a policy response to retail pricing technology that also addresses the growth of self-checkout would be a tool in fighting the cost of living crisis.

The NYC CLC respectfully asks the council to collaborate with the affiliates of the RWDSU to strengthen intro 891 and 892 to align the legislation with state wide protecting consumer and jobs from discriminatory pricing act, or defer entirely to the state on this matter.

Given the challenges related to automation and expectation of mass displacement, we encourage working closely with RWDSU 338 UFCW and the broader labor movement to keep workers at the center of the solution making process in this industry.

Thank you.

May you.

Good morning, Chair Epstein and members of the committee.

My name is Mayu Tovin Miyagi, and I'm an attorney at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC.

Epic is an independent nonprofit that was established in 1994 to secure the right to privacy in a digital age.

I'm here today to testify in support of Introduction 891, a bill that will protect New Yorkers from the unfair and predatory prisoners practice of surveillance pricing.

The exploitation of New Yorkers' personal information to set prices is unfair and should be banned.

As many have already testified through surveillance pricing, companies can charge customers a different amount for the same exact product based on the customer's personal data.

Today, retailers have access to enormous amounts of data on their customers, labeling us with hyper-specific and often intimate inferences, such as our financial status, interests, politics, health conditions, and more that can be proxies for protected characteristics.

Companies are engaged in surveillance pricing, uh, use those inferences to adjust prices.

This is happening both online and in brick and mortar stores and might be disguised as personalized discounts.

As a result, you might pay more than your neighbor for the same exact product from flights, rideshare trips, and groceries based on your personal data.

This is unfair and deeply unpopular.

Epic urges the committee to advance this bill to protect New Yorkers from the unfair practice of surveillance pricing while exempting discounts that do not harm consumers.

We do recommend that the council further strengthen the bill by removing unnecessary references to surveillance technology and adding a private right of action, which will ensure that this crucial legislation can be enforced.

A more detailed explanation of our suggestions can be found in my written testimony.

And thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

And Epic is happy to be a resource on this issue.

Thank you.

Uh Christian, you're on Zoom.

Hi, good morning.

Thank you, Chair Epstein.

I'm Kristen McManet.

I'm the director of government affairs and advocacy for AERP New York here to testify in support of intro 891, which we see as a really crucial uh consumer protection and data privacy measure.

Surveillance pricing uh, as referenced in this bill happens mostly online, which makes it particularly harmful to older adults who are already on fixed and limited incomes in New York City in particular.

We've seen a 50% increase over the past 10 years in older adults who are living at or below the poverty line.

And we think that this uh surveillance pricing practice also unfairly targets people with mobility issues or transportation challenges who are more likely to rely on online shopping, already have limited ability to go store to store to comparison shop, and we don't want that to also impact their online shopping.

Uh so in short, we see surveillance pricing as a ripoff to consumers and particularly to consumers who are already more vulnerable.

Uh, happy to continue to work with the city council on any future amendments to this bill, but we stand in strong support and thank you to Speaker Menon.

We look forward to the city council passing this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you and Lee.

Good morning, uh Chair Epstein and committee members.

My name is Lee Hefner.

I'm senior counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project.

And I'm going to start by thanking this committee for taking up this issue this morning, and to council members men and Edinburgh for bringing these uh bills forward.

Um, I want to provide a little context here, which is that I think this is perhaps the defining consumer protection issue of our time.

Um, complex technologies have certainly delivered remarkable benefits to society.

I think this is one where I think you'll find that most consumers are frankly fed up with feeling that they are constantly being scammed.

And I do think that it is further uh driving a crisis of inequality and economic division uh in, you know, it had a very perilous time uh for our democracy.

Um, just on the details of intro 891, I will be submitting written comments as well.

I want to play a little defense because most of my affirmative comments have been made by prior panelists.

I want to impress on this council that personalized discounts or a prohibition only on surveillance pricing if it results in a higher price is a sleight of hand.

Um, there is no such thing as a personalized discount that isn't just ubiquitous price discrimination.

Um, for the same reason, prohibiting surveillance pricing only where it results in a higher price or allowing surveillance pricing if it results in a lower price doesn't make sense when every price in the market is different.

Uh every single price will be higher or lower than another price in the market and therefore exempt.

This is a Trojan horse that we've seen in multiple jurisdictions where we have worked.

But a personalized discount is a thin veil for exactly the discrimination this legislation seeks to prohibit.

Um I think the imperative before this council, as other panelists have noted, is to protect loyalty memberships, rewards programs, uh, from being exploited as vectors for abuse.

And that is the data and the examples uh that we are looking at is exactly what's happening.

Um we can acknowledge and do uh acknowledgement loyalty programs on the time is expired.

But I do think it's imperative on this committee uh to tighten up those definitions to insert the pride or right of action, um, and I'm happy to submit uh more fulsome written comments to this committee.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all for flagging this.

I I want to turn back to the last panel and see if you could respond to some of their statements around loyalty and discounts and trying to protect those as they framed it.

Wondering how um I mean, uh the CLC or Epic or folks on Zoom feel about those loyalty programs and what we heard from the last panel about uh the need to preserve those versus the you know honest concern that we have around um not really having a real price and discounts really not existing through those programs.

Um, sure, yeah, yeah.

Go ahead.

Um, and thank you for that question.

So I think like um I think Lee said, it is sort of a sleight of hand.

I think that the current language of the bill does protect discounts that are offered uniformly to everyone, which means birthday discounts, if it's you know stated publicly and everyone knows just because everyone's birthday is on a different day doesn't mean that is not uniformly offered.

So I think that bill language protects that.

Um I think the the issue with presenting loyalty discounts uh as something.

Can I ask your question?

Do you think uh if it's offered widely, like if you spend 300 you get a 10%, is that offered widely then if everyone can have access to it, is that the same as the birthday discount in your mind?

I would think so because the terms are known to everyone and it's offered for offered widely.

Same thing if you get a rewards program, let's say you sign up for Hilton's rewards, and if you say 20 nights in a Hilton, you get a discount.

If you spend 70 nights in a Hilton, you get a bigger discount.

You assume that's offered widely because everyone can have access to that?

Yeah, I think the language of the bill does allow for that.

If those conditions are clearly stated to everyone, and uniformly available to anyone who meets that criteria.

Right, right, right.

Um, and I think the bigger issue with just broadly exempting loyalty programs is that if it's used to offer discounts, that means that everyone is going to want to sign up for the loyalty programs because you don't want to pay more for stuff.

But then the end result being everyone is giving up their personal data.

And again, there's no kind of comprehensive data protection in New York yet.

And so those data can be used for other purposes, and that can lead to more privacy issues, um, like the data being sold to data brokers or ICE as brought up earlier.

Yeah, and uh just again, folks on Zoom, I don't know, Alex, you have uh sense.

Do you feel the same way?

I don't want to uh wait into an expertise I don't have an out of my lane council member, but I guess intuitively my thought is and aligned with our testimony is if you start breaking down at the municipal level these sorts of dynamic pricing laws and they're different in every locality.

How then will the boss be able to administer programs across many different regulatory frameworks to provide a loyalty perk?

Feels like when we start passing these types of laws at the most local level, it's going to be a disincentive to want to continue this at a broader level.

But I'm not an expert, and that's not my lane.

Thank you.

And um, folks on Zoom, I want to give Lee or Kristen a chance to respond if you feel differently.

Um I just say that there's no imperative for businesses to engage in um individualized price discrimination or surveillance pricing or hyperdynamic pricing.

Um most small businesses you'll find do not do this and would not be affected by this type of legislation.

In fact, oftentimes what we've observed is that they feel like online platforms are controlling uh their ability to set their own prices, and uh it is the online delivery platform that is creating uh the confusion around what the price of a good or service is that is offered by the third party sellers.

So, you know, I I think that actually um uh relative to there being a patchwork of regulation, um uh I think the default position of this um uh committee of our organization is that there is no need uh for corporations to engage in this discriminatory behavior in the first place.

Um and I'll just add from ARP's perspective, we believe this bill protects the discounts that many older adults enjoy.

That was really helpful.

Thank you all, and thank you all for your testimony today.

There's two final registrants on Zoom.

I think is Jessica Walker and Kamora.

Faria, are you um we can take you then out here?

And okay, so then we have another uh person in test and person, Christopher Leon Johnson.

I think it's our last person.

So if anyone else is here who wanted to testify, this is your last moment to sign up.

Yeah.

Ready?

Uh thank you, Chair Epstein and Chair Um Abaddon.

My name is Christopher Leon Johnson.

I support both 891-892.

Uh, I want to say this right now that uh uh what the city council has to start uh understanding that uh we have a lot of special interests like transportational alternatives and streets block and open plans that get money from DoorDash and Uber that are mainly complicit when it comes to surveillance pricing, including those people outside in that the Liberista Hub, the worker trusted project that get money from Doordash and Lyft and Uber, and they are gonna be against this bill because what's gonna happen uh later down the line is that they're gonna come to you guys and lobby against this bill because what happens if this these bills become law, especially 890 891 with surveillance pricing, that hurts into the pockets of the apps.

And what happens when those money when they pockets get affected, it hurts the nonprofits money because they get money from those nonprofits.

So don't be surprised that they start coming out and they start opposing these bills and streets blogs make a uh article saying that while this bill is a flawed bill, and they start intimidating you and Mrs.

Abaddal into not supporting this bill, even even drop both these bills.

Uh, I want to say this right now that um uh going forward, uh I think that the city, like I said, I support these bills 100%, but y'all gotta be careful of these um nonprofit, especially Yamaha when it comes to Debbie Alpma Taser, because she gets money from DoorDash.

And what I I found out from people last night that she's signing up people within her own mini community to to DoorDash, and they are opposed to that.

So uh, sir, I hope that going forward that you start um understand that if these nonprofits, including Mr.

Debbie Atma Taser, who was connected to Zerwam Madani, start coming to your office and telling you that oh, you need you can't support this bill because ABCDFG ask them already getting money from the apps, especially DoorDash Lypped Uber and Um and Lypped Uber and Doordash, because if like I said they money get affected first, they're gonna hurt their pockets.

So, but if the bottom line is that's the matter the most.

So thank you so much and enjoy your day.

Thank you very much.

Uh hearing no other testimonies, this hearing is now adjourned.