California Assembly Committee Advances Surveillance Pricing Bill

Introduced by Assemblymember Christopher Ward (D), AB-446 is similar to proposals in Colorado and Illinois, which haven’t advanced. Several Judiciary Committee members at a hearing Tuesday referenced a “dystopian” reality in which companies set individual prices for consumers based on online tracking information. The California Chamber of Commerce testified in opposition, saying the bill would limit companies’ ability to offer consumers discounts.

The bill’s only enforcement mechanism currently is a private right of action (PRA), though Ward said sponsors are exploring options, including an attorney general-enforced consumer fund. A lot of technical details need work to ensure the bill works as intended, and companies aren’t able to find loopholes, he said.

Predatory pricing “may be a reality we’ve been living with for several years,” he said. The legislation was spurred by findings from Consumer Watchdog in December 2024. Ward also referenced the Biden administration FTC’s January report on surveillance pricing, compiled using subpoenaed documents from industry. Corporate projections showed companies could earn 2%-5% more using surveillance pricing tools, according to the report, he said: This bill is about “saving customers money.”

The California Chamber of Commerce isn’t opposed to banning data-related price increases, but the bill as written would force companies to litigate their decisions to offer consumers discounts, said Senior Policy Advocate Robert Moutrie. California Retailers Association Government Affairs Director Ryan Allain agreed, saying his industry is highly competitive and companies use aggregated data to offer discounts and clear inventory. TechNet, the Walt Disney Co. and CalBroadband also testified in opposition.

Privacy Committee Chair Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) said the amendments offered by the chamber might allow companies to artificially increase prices for all products and selectively decide when to offer discounts to consumers, based on tracking technology. The concern is “spot-on,” said Ward: Sponsors are continuing to work through technical aspects of the bill to ensure the intent of the new law would be enforceable. Responding to Assemblymember Diane Papan (D), Ward said they are exploring the potential for a consumer fund with AG enforcement in addition to the PRA.

Moutrie suggested legislators should follow the California Consumer Privacy Act and remove the private right of action. Judiciary Chair Ash Kalra (D) said he thinks the PRA is the best tool to ensure companies are deterred from manipulating prices based on surveillance information. Assemblymember John Harabedian (D) said he doesn’t see a “reasonable” path forward without the PRA.

Vice Chair Diane Dixon (R) voted against the bill. Consumer Watchdog, United Food and Commercial Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports and TechEquity were among the groups testifying in favor.

Several major advertising groups opposed AB-446 in a March 31 letter to the Judiciary Committee (see 2504010043). The Privacy Committee approved the bill earlier that month (see 2503190011). With OKs from the two committees, the bill can go to the Assembly floor.