HR-4966-119
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
What it does
The bill would prohibit operators of retail food stores (as defined in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008) from selling items at a "grossly excessive price," a term the Federal Trade Commission would define by rule within 180 days, and it would consider a threshold of 120% of the prior six-month market average. It would also bar pricing individual consumers based on their personal information, require signs where facial recognition is used, and ban electronic shelf labels in stores larger than 10,000 square feet. The FTC and state attorneys general could enforce it, and consumers could sue for the greater of actual damages or $3,000 per violation, with triple that amount for willful violations. It would void pre-dispute arbitration and class-action waivers for these claims and authorize $5 million for fiscal year 2025. Stores may use an affirmative defense for price increases tied to costs outside their control, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
Grocery shoppers, especially lower-income households that spend a larger share of income on food, who might pay less during price spikes. Consumers concerned about personal data or facial recognition use in stores. Consumer attorneys and class-action plaintiffs who gain a private right of action with fee-shifting. State attorneys general who gain a federal enforcement tool. Smaller grocers that do not use dynamic pricing technology and may compete with large chains.
Who is hurt
Grocery chains and supercenters that sell food and would face compliance costs, litigation exposure, and uncertainty until the FTC defines "grossly excessive." Retailers of larger stores that have invested in electronic shelf labels and would need to remove them and return to printed tags. Retailers whose price increases stem from controllable costs, who may lose the affirmative defense. Store employees who might handle more manual price changes. Consumers could see fewer or less targeted loyalty discounts, or reduced supply if price limits discourage stocking during shortages.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that families cannot easily shop around for groceries and that sharp price increases during shortages or emergencies hit low-income households hardest. They contend that personalized pricing built on personal data and facial recognition lets stores charge each shopper the most they will tolerate, and that electronic shelf labels make rapid price changes easy. They argue the cost-based defense, FTC rulemaking, and the option for states to adopt stronger rules protect honest retailers while giving consumers enforceable remedies.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that "grossly excessive price" is vague and that the Federal Trade Commission, not Congress, would set the key standard, creating uncertainty for retailers. They contend that price ceilings can cause shortages, discourage stocking during supply disruptions, and fall hardest on thin-margin grocers, while the $3,000 per-violation damages, tripled penalties, and voided arbitration clauses invite costly class-action litigation. They argue that banning electronic shelf labels removes a tool that improves price accuracy and lowers labor costs, and that existing law already addresses deceptive practices.
Constitutional context
Congress would rely on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and grocery sales fall within the aggregation logic of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Retailers might raise Due Process vagueness challenges to "grossly excessive price," nondelegation concerns because the FTC would define that central term, and post-Loper Bright review of the FTC's rule. The bill sets no specific numeric price standard, leaving the definition to the agency.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts power to the FTC, which would define key terms and enforce the law, and to courts through private suits, while Congress, notice-and-comment rulemaking, and judicial review under post-Loper Bright independent interpretation serve as checks.
Historical precedent
Many states have price gouging laws triggered by declared emergencies, and the FTC has previously studied but not received a general federal price gouging statute, so a year-round federal grocery rule has no clear direct precedent.