Uniform Pricing & Ban on Surveillance Pricing
PROPOSED / DRAFT: UNIFORM PRICING & BAN ON SURVEILLANCE PRICING
POSITION
The same seller should offer the same publicly disclosed base price for the same product or service when the location or sales channel, time, quantity, quality, and stated terms are the same. A business should not secretly charge one person more because surveillance data or an algorithm predicts that person is willing, desperate, rushed, wealthy, isolated, or unlikely to compare prices.
ONE PUBLIC PRICE UNDER THE SAME TERMS
A seller must disclose the full price and every mandatory charge before the customer commits to the transaction. The seller may change a price based on publicly disclosed and objectively applied conditions, but every similarly situated customer must receive the same price under those conditions.
Permitted public terms may include quantity, delivery method, location, time, inventory, membership, loyalty, employee, student, senior, military, income-qualified, coupon, promotional, negotiated commercial, or other clearly stated discounts that are available on the same terms to everyone who qualifies.
NO SECRET SURVEILLANCE PRICING
A seller may not secretly set or influence a price, fee, ranking, offer, selection, discount, or access decision by using personal surveillance data or predicted willingness to pay. Prohibited inputs include unrelated browsing history, device identity, precise location, inferred distress, medical or financial vulnerability, private communications, political or religious activity, or another personal profile that is not necessary to complete the transaction.
A business may use aggregate demand, supply, cost, inventory, timing, or market information to set a publicly offered price. It may not show different people different undisclosed prices at the same moment under the same stated conditions.
DIGITAL SHELF LABELS & ONLINE SYSTEMS
A digital shelf label may update a store's public price, but it may not identify a nearby shopper or display a different price to different people. An online seller must preserve the price shown when the customer begins checkout for a reasonable period and may not raise it because the customer revisited the item, used a particular device, appeared rushed, or was predicted to pay more.
INSURANCE & LENDING
Insurance and lending may use lawful, disclosed, evidence-based risk factors that are materially related to the covered risk or repayment decision. They may not use secret willingness-to-pay calculations, unrelated surveillance data, protected activity, or a proxy designed to evade equal-treatment law. The customer must receive the material factors, data sources, correction process, and appeal rights used in an adverse price or eligibility decision.
15-DAY CORRECTION & REFUND
After receiving notice of a pricing violation, the seller has 15 calendar days to correct the record, stop the unlawful practice, and refund the full unlawful difference and related mandatory charges. The seller must preserve the price, algorithmic decision record, data sources, version history, and transaction evidence needed for review.
THE 30/30/30 PROCESS
Initial decision: The seller must issue a complete written decision within 30 calendar days after receiving a complete complaint.
Independent appeal: A reviewer who did not issue the first decision must decide a timely appeal within the next 30 calendar days.
Complaint or independent review: The responsible regulator or independent review body must decide the complaint within the following 30 calendar days.
On day 91, administrative remedies are exhausted and the customer may sue without further delay. The clock may not be restarted through transfer, reclassification, reassignment, or immaterial requests for information.
REMEDIES
A prevailing customer may recover the unlawful price difference, related mandatory charges, actual damages, proven pain and suffering, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs. A court may order refunds, correction, an injunction, deletion of unlawfully used data, independent testing, or another lawful remedy needed to stop the practice.
SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS & FOR-PROFIT PENALTIES
A violation is systemic when it is built into a policy, contract, software system, algorithm, pricing system, training program, or management direction, or when management knows of a repeated pattern and fails to stop it. An isolated employee mistake that is promptly corrected is not systemic.
After a final finding and full due process, a for-profit business responsible for a systemic violation is subject to a civil penalty based on its annual United States revenue:
First final systemic finding: 5%.
Second final systemic finding within five years: 10%.
Third final systemic finding within five years: 15%.
Fourth or later final systemic finding within five years: 20%.
The 20% level is the maximum under this ladder. Refunds, damages, attorney fees, court costs, restitution, and any separately proven criminal consequences remain available and are not replaced by the revenue penalty.
Nonprofit and charitable organizations are reserved for a separate policy and are not assigned a revenue-based penalty by this section.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
Large sellers and responsible regulators should publish aggregate complaint volume, pricing-system audits, reversals, refunds, systemic findings, penalties, and repeat violations without exposing customer data or legitimate security information.
Core MPA standard: One public price under the same terms. No hidden price based on who an algorithm thinks you are or how much it thinks it can take from you.
Related policies: Consumer Rights; Privacy Rights; Artificial Intelligence, Synthetic Media & Automated Accounts; Credit & Financial Reputation Reform; Insurance Claims, Denials & Bad-Faith Accountability.
Status: Proposed / Draft, not yet formally adopted.
Originally published: October 3, 2026.
Last updated: October 3, 2026.
Version: Draft 0.1.