Search
Login

, , , , , , ,

Surveillance Pricing, State by State: The Complete Legislative Tracker

  • By: Wise Marketer Staff
  • Posted on September 11, 2026

A comprehensive compilation of Laws, Bills and the Loyalty Carve-out

We recently published an article alerting you to the headlines that Loyalty Marketing has been making in 2026 for the wrong reason, and what you should do about it. We backed that up with how journalists are adopting a click-bait approach to the discussion of the data that brands collect in their permission-based loyalty programs. You can read that here.

In this article, we provide a compilation of state and federal legislation — enacted laws, vetoed bills, and bills still pending — that address surveillance pricing, along with related regulatory and enforcement activity from the FTC and state attorneys general.

This tracker was compiled to show, state by state, whether the bona fide loyalty program carve-out we defined in our earlier articles is present, and how each law defines it. That's an important focus for loyalty practitioners. The information in this tracker is current as of September 11, 2026.

Every bill in this tracker regulates a specific conduct: using personal data to set an individualized price. Contrast this with the larger category of data privacy law which regulates the collection, use, and sharing of personal data generally (think CCPA, VCDPA, or the comprehensive state privacy statutes).

There is correlation between this new category of surveillance pricing legislation and data privacy laws. For example, we treat California's CCPA as a separate, pre-existing privacy law that the AG is using as a secondary enforcement hook against surveillance pricing, not as one of the bills tracked in this article.

The Headline Pattern

The state legislative response to surveillance pricing has moved from a handful of bills to a genuine wave: more than 40 bills are now pending across 24-plus states, with three states having already enacted outright bans and a fourth awaiting a governor's signature.

If your organization operates in more than one state, “what does the law require” no longer has a single answer — it has a patchwork of answers, and that patchwork is still being written.

Every enacted or governor-pending state law so far exempts loyalty programs in some form. That is not a coincidence, and it is not guaranteed to continue — Colorado's broader bill, which did not include as clean a loyalty carve-out, was vetoed.

The pattern to watch is not “will loyalty programs be regulated” but “how precisely will lawmakers keep defining the boundary between a protected loyalty discount and a targeted surveillance price” — and that boundary is being redrawn, bill by bill, right now.

Enacted Laws

Maryland — Protection From Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895)

Signed April 28, 2026; effective October 1, 2026. The first state law of its kind. Scope is narrower than most that followed — it applies only to food retailers and third-party delivery services, prohibiting use of personal data to set a higher individualized price. Enforced by the state Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division; no private right of action. Penalties up to $10,000 per violation, $25,000 for repeat violators.

Loyalty carve-out: Yes — explicitly exempts “promotional pricing offers, loyalty program benefits, or other temporary discounts... related to retention of existing customers,” as well as loyalty/membership/rewards programs any consumer may voluntarily join.

Connecticut — SB 4

Signed May 27, 2026; effective October 1, 2026. Broader than Maryland — applies to retailers generally, not just food. Notably clarifies that ordinary pricing factors (geographic location, delivery cost, timing, supply/demand, pricing errors, network outages) don't count as surveillance pricing.

Loyalty carve-out: Yes, and more explicit than Maryland's — Connecticut's law specifically protects both group discounts (students, veterans, seniors, teachers) and voluntary loyalty programs by name.

New Jersey — Fair Price Protection Act (A4085/A4523)

Signed July 23, 2026; effective August 1, 2027 (a separate electronic shelf label moratorium takes effect February 1, 2027). Scope is grocery- and foodstuff-specific. This is the strictest law so far on the enforcement side: penalties up to $50,000 per violation, treble damages, and a private right of action — meaning individual consumers, not just the state AG, can sue.

Loyalty carve-out: Yes — exempts discounts, promotional prices, and loyalty program benefits.

New York — Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act

Effective late 2025. Unlike the three laws above, this is a disclosure, not a prohibition — it requires a label (“THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA”) when applicable. The National Retail Federation sued, arguing the label was stigmatizing and violated the First Amendment; a federal judge dismissed that challenge in October 2025, finding the disclosure requirement reasonably related to the state's interest in informing consumers.

Passed the Legislature, Awaiting Governor Action

New York — One Fair Price Act (S.8623B/A.9349B)

Passed both chambers in June 2026; sent to Governor Hochul, who has until December 31, 2026 to sign, veto, or let it become law without signature. This would go well beyond the existing disclosure law — an outright ban on using personal data to set individualized prices, paired with a companion bill banning electronic shelf labels in grocery and pharmacy retailers. As of this writing, Hochul has not yet acted, and legal observers do not expect a decision before New York's November 7 gubernatorial election; some further note that bills held this late in a session year are sometimes "chaptered" (substantively amended) before signature, so the final text could still shift.

Loyalty carve-out: Yes — the bill exempts loyalty programs, coupons, subscription pricing, and senior/veteran discounts.

Vetoed

Colorado — HB 26-1210

Passed the legislature but vetoed by Governor Polis on June 2, 2026. Notable both for being the first veto in this wave and for its broader scope — it would have restricted individualized wage-setting as well as pricing, a more expansive approach than any enacted law to date. Worth watching whether a narrower, Maryland/Connecticut-style version returns in a future session.

Actively Pending (Selected — Not Exhaustive)

StateBillStatusScope
CaliforniaAB 2564Passed Assembly and Senate; missed Aug. 31 concurrence deadline, stalled for the sessionAll retailers; penalties up to $12,500/violation ($37,500 if intentional)
WashingtonHB 2481Died in committee (Feb. 2026); companion SB 6312 also died in committeeGeneral surveillance pricing prohibition
PennsylvaniaSurveillance Pricing ActIntroduced Dec. 2025General prohibition
IllinoisHB 4248 (Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act)PendingDisclosure + consumer opt-out right
MinnesotaSF 3098PendingProhibits AI-driven real-time price adjustment
TennesseeSB 1807PendingProhibits personalized algorithmic pricing
VermontVariousUnder considerationElectronic shelf label / real-time pricing restrictions

California also merits a separate note: independent of AB 2564, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an investigative sweep in early 2026 targeting individualized pricing practices under the state's existing privacy law (CCPA), arguing undisclosed personalization may already violate the law's purpose-limitation principle — meaning California companies face potential exposure even before any new bill passes.

Federal Landscape (Brief Recap)

As covered in earlier pieces in this series: the FTC's August 2026 enforcement policy statement requires disclosure, not prohibition, and Senator Gallego's One Fair Price Act (S. 3387) — the broadest federal prohibition proposal — remains pending in the Senate Commerce Committee with a companion House bill similarly stalled. Separately, Representatives Tlaib and Hoyle's grocery-specific “Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act” (H.R. 4966) has a Senate companion introduced by Senators Luján and Merkley in March 2026. None of these federal bills has passed either chamber as of this writing.

What to Watch Next

  • Whether Governor Hochul signs New York's One Fair Price Act before her December 31 deadline — this would be the broadest enacted state ban to date.
  • Whether California's AB 2564 is revived next session — it passed both chambers but missed the August 31 concurrence deadline and given the state's outsized influence on national compliance practices, a reintroduction is likely.
  • Whether any state weakens or narrows its loyalty carve-out in future amendments — so far, every enacted law has preserved it, but Colorado's veto is a reminder that broader, less carefully drafted bills can still fail even with public support for the underlying goal.
  • Whether other states begin copying New Jersey's private-right-of-action model, which meaningfully raises the stakes compared to AG-only enforcement.

Appendix: Sources and Links (For Ongoing Tracking)

This list is structured for periodic review and updating as bills move. Organized by state/jurisdiction.

Enacted Laws

Passed / Awaiting Signature

Vetoed

Pending Bills / Multi-State Trackers

Federal

  • FTC August 2026 enforcement policy statement — see Piece #1 in this series for full detail and sourcing.
  • Gallego's One Fair Price Act (S. 3387) — see Piece #1 in this series.

Note on methodology: this tracker reflects publicly available legal-industry summaries and primary legislative-tracking sources current as of September 11, 2026, and should be independently verified against primary legislative text before being relied on for compliance decisions. The Wise Marketer will update this piece periodically as bills move; readers are encouraged to flag known status changes.