HR-2427-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Laura Friedman (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit sellers from raising prices more than 10% above pre-disaster levels on essential goods and services — including food, emergency supplies, transportation, hotel lodging, and residential rentals — for 30 days after a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency. For repair and reconstruction services, the price cap would last 180 days. Entities that had no pre-disaster price for a good or service could not charge more than 50% above their cost. The FTC would enforce the prohibition, and both states and private individuals could sue for violations within two years of discovery.
Who benefits
Disaster-affected residents who need food, shelter, fuel, and emergency supplies immediately after a declared disaster. Renters and hotel guests in disaster zones who would be protected from sudden housing cost spikes. Lower-income households with less financial cushion to absorb price surges. Communities in disaster-prone regions (e.g., Gulf Coast, tornado alley, wildfire-affected Western states). State attorneys general who would gain a new enforcement tool. Private plaintiffs who could recover damages through civil suits.
Who is hurt
Retailers, landlords, hotels, and service providers who argue higher prices reflect genuine increases in their own supply and operating costs. Suppliers and distributors who may reduce shipments to disaster areas if profit margins are capped, potentially reducing the availability of goods. Businesses that incur higher costs to transport goods into disaster zones and cannot fully pass those costs on. The FTC, which would bear new enforcement responsibilities without a specified funding increase. Repair and reconstruction contractors who may face 180-day margin constraints even as their labor and materials costs rise.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that price gouging during disasters exploits people at their most vulnerable, when they have no ability to comparison-shop or delay purchases. They contend that 34 states already have price gouging laws, demonstrating broad bipartisan recognition of the problem, but that federal coverage is needed to address interstate sellers and online platforms that fall outside state jurisdiction. They further argue that the bill's cost-based exception protects businesses from genuine cost increases while targeting purely opportunistic markups.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that price increases after disasters serve an important economic function: they signal scarcity, attract outside suppliers, and allocate limited goods to those who need them most — a dynamic that artificial caps can disrupt. They contend that capping prices may cause shortages by reducing the incentive for businesses to rush supplies into disaster areas, potentially leaving shelves empty faster than a free-price market would. They further argue that enforcement across thousands of small transactions in chaotic post-disaster conditions would be administratively difficult and that the FTC lacks the capacity to police violations effectively.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8), and price controls on goods moving across state lines fall squarely within that power. No active Supreme Court doctrine directly contests federal price regulation of this type. The bill's categorization under "Defense" is likely administrative; the primary constitutional framework is Commerce Clause authority, not war powers.
Checks and balances
The FTC (executive branch) gains new enforcement authority; Congress sets the price thresholds and duration limits; courts provide a check through private rights of action and state civil suits, and may review FTC penalty determinations.
Historical precedent
Thirty-four states have enacted price gouging statutes triggered by state or federal disaster declarations, but no comprehensive federal price gouging law currently exists, making this bill a first-of-its-kind federal action in this policy domain.