S-4401-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Ben Luján (D-NM)
What it does
The PRICE Act would require third-party food and goods delivery platforms (such as DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Instacart) to display all fees and the running order total prominently throughout the ordering process. It would prohibit platforms from calculating delivery fees based on user-specific data such as inferred price sensitivity, past purchasing behavior, or willingness to pay. Delivery fees would have to be locked in once a user selects a restaurant or retailer, and platforms would be required to provide a clear explanation of each fee before payment is requested. The FTC and state attorneys general would share enforcement authority.
Who benefits
Consumers who use delivery apps — estimated at over 150 million U.S. users — particularly those who may have been charged higher fees based on inferred willingness to pay. Lower-income users who may be most sensitive to hidden or variable fees. Users in areas with limited delivery competition who have fewer alternatives. Small restaurants and retailers whose menu prices may have appeared inflated due to undisclosed platform markups. State attorneys general who gain a new enforcement tool. Consumer advocacy organizations.
Who is hurt
Third-party delivery platforms (DoorDash, Uber Eats, Grubhub, Instacart, and similar services) that would lose the ability to use dynamic, personalized pricing algorithms — a potentially significant revenue source. Platform shareholders and investors. Gig economy delivery workers if reduced platform revenue leads to lower per-order incentives or reduced order volume. Advertisers and data brokers who benefit from platforms' behavioral data ecosystems. Platforms operating subscription models may face complications if fee structures must be locked in earlier in the ordering flow.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that delivery platforms routinely obscure the true cost of orders through drip pricing — revealing fees only at checkout — and that some platforms have been documented using behavioral data to charge higher fees to users deemed less price-sensitive. They contend that requiring upfront, locked-in fee disclosure restores informed consumer choice and that banning personalized fee algorithms prevents a form of price discrimination that disproportionately burdens users with fewer alternatives. The FTC's own reports on junk fees and drip pricing provide direct evidentiary support for the need for this type of regulation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that dynamic pricing — including personalization — is a standard and legal feature of competitive markets, and that prohibiting it could reduce platform efficiency and ultimately raise average fees for all users. They contend that existing FTC authority over unfair and deceptive practices already covers genuinely misleading fee disclosures, making new legislation redundant. Critics also argue that the bill's prohibition on fees "informed by" user characteristics is vague enough to chill legitimate pricing practices, and that post-Loper Bright, courts will independently scrutinize any FTC regulations implementing these broad standards, creating significant legal uncertainty for the industry.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate delivery platforms rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), as these platforms operate as interstate internet services. The bill delegates rulemaking authority to the FTC, which under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) means courts will independently review whether any FTC regulations stay within the bill's statutory boundaries — agencies no longer receive deference on their own interpretations.
Checks and balances
The FTC gains primary rulemaking and enforcement authority under this bill; state attorneys general gain concurrent civil enforcement power; federal courts serve as a check through independent statutory review under the post-Loper Bright standard.
Historical precedent
Several states, including New York and California, have enacted local laws requiring delivery platforms to disclose fees and limiting certain charges to restaurants, though no prior federal statute has directly regulated delivery platform pricing algorithms.