Committee Hearing on Surveillance Pricing and Grocery Price Stability Bills - June 17, 2026
Committee Hearing on Surveillance Pricing and Grocery Price Stability Bills - June 17, 2026
The New York City Council Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection, chaired by Harvey D. Epstein, held a hearing on June 17, 2026, primarily to discuss two legislative proposals: Int. No. 0891 (prohibiting surveillance pricing) and Int. No. 0892 (restricting grocery price increases to once per 24-hour period). The committee also briefly addressed Int. No. 0813 (tobacco retail dealer licensing related to cannabis law), which was laid over. The hearing featured testimony from Commissioner Sam Levine of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), representatives from the New York State Attorney General's office, labor unions, industry groups, and privacy advocates. Key themes included the need to protect consumers from opaque, data-driven pricing while preserving legitimate discounts and loyalty programs, as well as enforcement challenges and the importance of coordination with state law.
Public Comments & Testimony
- New York State Attorney General’s Office (Jared Hova): Expressed strong support for a ban on surveillance pricing, noting that disclosure laws have limited utility because consumers often cannot detect when they are being surveilled. Supported Int. 0891 and emphasized that discounts should be genuine and not tied to personal data. Stated the AG's office would coordinate with DCWP and had no objection to a private right of action.
- Local 338 RWDSU UFCW (Nikki Cateman): Supported the bills’ intent but urged closing loopholes. Called for banning electronic shelf labels (ESLs) in Int. 0892 and for Int. 0891 to explicitly address data collection via loyalty programs. Noted that frontline workers often bear the brunt of customer frustration over changing prices.
- RWDSU (Debbie Wright): Supported the bills but stressed that ESLs are infrastructure for dynamic pricing and must be banned. Also called for a private right of action and stronger enforcement. Emphasized that loyalty programs should not become a loophole for individualized pricing.
- UFCW International (Jeremy Espinosa): Echoed support for banning ESLs and warned that without such a ban, companies could circumvent restrictions by changing prices on days like SNAP disbursement. Recommended that loyalty discounts be uniform and not based on personal data.
- Chamber of Progress (Jabari Cooper and Kelsey Dorado): Opposed the bills as drafted, arguing that the definitions are too broad and would ban discounts, coupons, and targeted promotions that benefit consumers. Cited examples like cart abandonment discounts and registry completion discounts. Recommended aligning with Maryland’s law that only bans price increases from personal data, not discounts.
- Tech NYC (Matt Henning): Shared concerns that Int. 0891 would prohibit personalized discounts that lower prices. Noted that Colorado’s governor vetoed a similar bill. Suggested waiting for the state's One Fair Price Act to be finalized before creating local law.
- Hotel Association of NYC (Nikki Franzita): Warned that the “uniformly made available” provision would outlaw hotel loyalty programs and personalized discounts (e.g., birthday discounts). Provided specific language amendments to allow tiered rewards.
- Bronx Chamber of Commerce (Lisa Sorin): Emphasized that tiered loyalty programs are essential for small businesses to retain customers. Urged protecting all forms of loyalty and rewards programs.
- NYC Central Labor Council (Alexander Gleason): Supported the bills in principle but asked for stronger alignment with the state’s Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act. Raised concerns about automation and self-checkout displacing workers.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center – EPIC (Mayu Tubin Mayahi): Strongly supported Int. 0891, arguing that surveillance pricing is unfair and deeply unpopular. Recommended removing references to “surveillance technology” and adding a private right of action.
- AARP New York (Kristen McManus): Supported the bills, noting that older adults on fixed incomes are especially vulnerable to surveillance pricing when shopping online.
- American Economic Liberties Project (Lee Hefner): Argued that there is no such thing as a “personalized discount” that isn’t price discrimination; urged tighter definitions and a private right of action. Cautioned against allowing discounts based on personal data.
- Christopher Leon Johnson: Expressed support for both bills and warned that nonprofit organizations funded by ride-sharing and delivery apps may lobby against the legislation.
Discussion Items
- Definition and scope of surveillance pricing: Speaker Julie Menon and Commissioner Levine provided examples, including ride-sharing apps quoting different prices to different users at the same time, grocery chains using digital shelf labels to change prices rapidly, and airlines raising prices based on browsing history. They emphasized that the practice is often invisible to consumers.
- Enforcement challenges: Commissioner Levine noted that DCWP has not received any complaints about surveillance pricing because consumers rarely detect it. He advocated for a private right of action and partnerships with investigative organizations. The council’s own investigation found price variations of up to 23% on grocery delivery platforms.
- Discounts and loyalty programs: Multiple industry witnesses argued that the bill’s language would inadvertently prohibit common discounts (e.g., cart abandonment, registry completion, tiered hotel rewards). They urged exemptions for discounts based on voluntarily provided data that are not used to increase base prices. Labor and consumer advocates countered that loyalty programs can be a “backdoor” to surveillance pricing and that discounts should be uniform to prevent abuse.
- Electronic shelf labels (ESLs): Union representatives called for a ban on ESLs in Int. 0892, claiming they enable dynamic pricing even without surveillance. Industry witnesses opposed a ban, arguing that ESLs simply replace manual price changes and that the bill already limits price changes to once per day.
- Coordination with state law: Commissioner Levine and the AG’s office confirmed they are working to align the city bills with the state’s pending One Fair Price Act. Several industry witnesses urged the council to wait for the state law to avoid a patchwork of conflicting regulations.
- Worker impacts: Testimony from labor groups highlighted that frontline workers face customer anger when prices change rapidly, and that technologies like ESLs can reduce staffing and shift risks onto workers.
Key Outcomes
- No vote was taken on Int. 0891, Int. 0892, or Int. 0813. The committee heard testimony and is expected to consider amendments before advancing the bills to a full council vote.
- Int. 0813 was laid over by the committee, with no additional discussion at this hearing.
- Commissioner Levine committed to working with the council on amendments, including adding a private right of action to Int. 0891 and clarifying language on discounts. He also stated that DCWP would need additional funding (approximately eight total new lines) to enforce the bills.
- Stakeholders from both the industry and labor sides were encouraged to continue providing input. The chair and speaker indicated they would consider proposed changes, particularly around the definition of discounts and the treatment of electronic shelf labels.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, good morning. Welcome to the New York City Council hearing on the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection. At this time, please silence all electronics and do not approach the days. Again, please do not approach the days. If you're testifying or have any other questions or concerns, please contact the Sergeant at Arms. Thank you for your cooperation. Chairs, you may begin. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Oh yeah, we got them. Thank you for joining the legislative hearing today and the council's consumer worker protection on introduction to $891 and $892. I want to thank the majority leader and the speaker for and for advancing this legislation. I'm going to recognize my colleagues who are here. And on Zoom, it is Ariola. And Councilmember Hanks was here, but I think she's going to be coming back. And I'd like to be able to turn it over to the speaker for our opening statement. Great. Thank you so much. I first of all want to thank Chair Epstein for holding today's hearing. I'm Julie Menon, Speaker of the New York City Council. I want to thank the administration for testifying today. I'm here today to discuss a bill in relation to prohibiting surveillance pricing, and it's also one that I'm proud to sponsor. That's introduction eight nine one, and also proud to support introduction eight nine two, sponsored by majority leader Sean Abreu in relation to restricting the frequency of price increases in grocery stores. So first of all, I want to start by defining some of these terms because I think this will be useful. Surveillance pricing is a practice of setting a price that utilizes a consumer's personal data collected through surveillance technology. The price fee or discount that is set for one consumer or group of consumers may differ from the price fee or discount that is set for another consumer or group of consumers based on that utilization of personal data. This personal data can be gathered, it can be purchased, or it can be acquired from a third party. Dynamic pricing is the practice of changing the price for a consumer good or service literally in real time, sometimes instantaneously, sometimes multiple times a day. In light of advancements in technology, which should be utilized to benefit consumers, many shoppers are noticing troubling trends. For example, perhaps someone searches online for the perfect NYX jersey to wear to the parade tomorrow. Or another example, many New Yorkers have had the experience where they're leaving a bar after a night out, and a group of roommates all order a four-hire vehicle at the exact same time, only to discover that each one of them is quoted a different price to be taken on the exact same route. Or perhaps most troubling at all, there's now technology that supermarkets could potentially utilize where if you place a bunch of bananas listed at three dollars into your carts after you get to the checkout counter, that price is now scanning at seven dollars for those bananas. New Yorkers should be protected from this type of price inconsistency and unpredictability, and more importantly, they deserve to understand how and why it's happening. In our research, and I want to be clear, we sent investigators out to look at this issue. In our research, the council has discovered the following examples of surveillance and dynamic pricing. This is by the way, not an exhaustive list. I'm just going to list some of the examples we found. Major grocery chains are beginning to roll out digital shelf labels that enable stores to easily update prices. Grocery stores that have implemented them report that they can change a price of items up to 2,000 times per day. Investigations have found that major chain retailers set different prices based on consumers' proximity to their store or competitor's store, with the price of a television at one store increasing from $499.99 to $599.99 cents when the consumer pulled into the store's parking lot. A behavioral economist who worked at a ride share company revealed that the application increases prices when a consumer's phone battery is low because they might not be otherwise be able to get home if they don't accept the high offer. An outside investigation published in December 2025 found that a grocery delivery platform was engaging in algorithmic pricing experiments that resulted in consumers paying different prices for the same products from the same store at the same time with price differences as high as 23% for certain products. On April 18th, an Airlines X account suggested a customer try clearing their account and their cookies or booking with an incognito window after the customer complained about a $230 increase in their ticket price within one day, indicating that the company is using personal browsing data to set flight prices. And finally, from our own investigation that we did, using 10 different ride share accounts to conduct approximately 370 pricing checks that our investigators did across three standard routes. Our investigation found consistent variation in discounts across accounts. Some accounts repeatedly received automatically applied discounts that other accounts viewing the same route at the same moment did not, so that otherwise identical riders were quoted different final prices. At least one account received no discounts at all over 370 pricing checks. These examples should concern all of us. It is crucial that government acts now to prevent this predatory behavior from becoming any more common. And I just want to say, as somebody practiced consumer protection law for a very long time, the issue with dynamic and surveillance pricing is it's insidious.
openpublica.com