New York City Council Passes Ban on Surveillance Pricing

Sponsored by Council Speaker Julie Menin, the bill bars companies from using information such as browsing histories, shopping habits, demographics, location data and other identifying details to set individualized prices. The city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection would investigate complaints and could impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. Qualifying small businesses would have a chance to correct violations before penalties apply.

Mamdani supports the measure, saying personal data should not be used against New Yorkers’ pocketbooks. If he does not sign within 30 days, the bill becomes law automatically unless he vetoes it; the Council could override a veto with a two-thirds majority. Council officials cited investigations reporting price differences of as much as 23% on a grocery delivery platform, a television price rising from $499.99 to $599.99 when a customer entered a store parking lot, and a ride-share app raising fares when a user’s phone battery was low.

The measure follows Seattle, which became the first U.S. city to ban surveillance pricing in September, and similar bans in Connecticut, Maryland and New Jersey. New York state lawmakers passed the One Fair Price Act in June; that bill would also restrict the collection, retention, sale or sharing of personal data to facilitate individualized pricing. Groundwork Collaborative CEO Lindsay Owens urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to sign it. Uber spokesperson Josh Gold objected to the city bill, arguing it could make it harder for small restaurants to reach customers and leave them at a disadvantage against national chains.

The vote comes amid a wider city debate over corporate use of personal information. A separate measure sponsored by Councilmember Shahana Hanif would restrict businesses’ use of biometric recognition to identify or verify customers, require notice and written consent for biometric data collection, and set rules for handling that information. Hanif has warned that biometric surveillance could pose particular risks to immigrant communities.