Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The John A. Wilson Building 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004

Statement of Introduction Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026 April 20, 2026 Today I, along with Councilmembers Zachary Parker, Matthew Frumin, Anita Bonds, Charles Allen, Janeese Lewis George, Robert C. White, Jr., Brooke Pinto, and Doni Crawford, am introducing the Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026 to address emerging concerns around digital marketplace practices that harm consumers. This legislation would amend the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by creating new definitions for “surveillance-based price discrimination” and “personally identifiable information,” and explicitly classify surveillance-based pricing as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under D.C. Official Code § 28–3904. This measure will protect consumers from opaque pricing systems that leverage personal data to manipulate costs for private gain. A December 2025 study conducted by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative found that Instacart listed identical grocery items at varying prices within the same stores in the District of Columbia.1 In some cases, prices were marked up by as much as 23 percent, based not on supply or demand, but on algorithmic assessments that functionally tested differences in individual customers’ willingness to pay for identical items. A December 2024 Consumer Watchdog report found that big box stores, airlines, online marketplaces, rideshare companies, and insurers similarly differentiate prices for customers based on personal characteristics that predict differences in willingness to pay for identical items.2 The Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into surveillance pricing in 2024, and released a research study in January 2025 that affirmed that companies were using consumer data to set prices.3 While the full extent of surveillance-based pricing is still being revealed, it is the case that consumers no longer have certainty that a given good or service’s quoted price reflects its market value. Without regulatory safeguards, this type of pricing model could further expand across digital platforms and extend to in-store pricing models, allowing companies to increase prices arbitrarily based on consumer data rather than the fairly assessed, mass-market-borne cost of a good or service. This proposal aligns with a growing effort in several states to address surveillance-based pricing practices. Earlier this month, Maryland lawmakers passed the Protection from Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895) and sent the law to Governor Moore’s desk for his signature. Several other states, including Georgia, Ohio, Minnesota, and California, are considering related legislation. By advancing this bill, the District can proactively work to protect residents from exploitative pricing strategies before they become widespread and entrenched. I look forward to working with my colleagues and stakeholders to advance this measure.
1 https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-practices/instacart-ai-pricing-experiment-inflating-grocery-bills-a1142182490/ 2 https://consumerwatchdog.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Surveillance-Price-Gouging.pdf 3 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files?file=ftc_gov/pdf/p246202_surveillancepricing6bstudy_researchsummaries_redacted.pdf
Christina Henderson Committee Member Councilmember, At-Large Human Services Chairperson, Committee on Health Facilities Transportation and the Environment
1
______________________________ ______________________________ 1 Councilmember Zachary Parker Councilmember Christina Henderson 2 3 4 ______________________________ ______________________________ 5 Councilmember Matthew Frumin Councilmember Anita Bonds 6 7 8 ______________________________ ______________________________ 9 Councilmember Charles Allen Councilmember Janeese Lewis George 10 11 12 ______________________________ ______________________________ 13 Councilmember Robert C. White, Jr. Councilmember Brooke Pinto 14 15 16 ______________________________ 17 Councilmember Doni Crawford 18 19 20 21 22 A BILL 23 24 __________ 25 26 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 27 28 _________________________ 29 30 31 To amend Chapter 39 of Title 28 of the District of Columbia Official Code to prohibit 32 algorithmic pricing of consumer goods. 33 34 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, That 35 this act may be cited as the "Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026". 36 Sec. 2. Chapter 39 of Title 28 of the District of Columbia Official Code is amended as 37 follows: 38

2
(a) Section 28-3901 is amended by adding new paragraphs (16) and (17) to read as 39 follows: 40 “(16) “Surveillance-based price discrimination” means using personally 41 identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance technology, technological 42 methods, systems, or tools, including sensors, cameras, device tracking, biometric monitoring, 43 or other forms of observation or data collection capable of gathering personally identifiable 44 information about a consumer’s behavior, characteristics, location, or other personal attributes, 45 whether in physical or digital environments, to set the price assessed for a good or service. 46 “(17) "Personally identifiable information" means information that can be used 47 to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other 48 personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual.”. 49 (b) Section 28-3904 is amended as follows: 50 (1) Subsection (kk) is amended by striking the phrase “; or” and inserting a 51 semicolon in its place. 52 (2) Subsection (ll) is amended by striking the period and inserting the phrase “; 53 or” in its place. 54 (3) A new subsection (mm) is added to read as follows: 55 “(mm) Engage in surveillance-based price discrimination to differentiate prices 56 assessed to a customer for a good or a service.”. 57 Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 58 The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the fiscal 59 impact statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975, 60 approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 61
3
Sec. 4. Effective date. 62 This act shall take effect after approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the 63 Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto) and a 30-day period of congressional 64 review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved 65 December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-206.02(c)(1)). 66