California Republicans Oppose Regulating 'Surveillance Pricing'

The Assembly Judiciary Committee considered SB-259, which would restrict data from a consumer’s device -- including its current location -- being used to set prices. The bill previously cleared the Privacy Committee and the full Senate (see 2506250011).

Vice Chair Diane Dixon (R) doesn’t think regulation is needed here, she said. "I just believe that the market resolves these issues." If a price of something based on someone's ZIP code is "too high, you don't buy it."

But Chair Ash Kalra (D) disagreed. "Businesses should have to argue as to why they need our location," said Kalra: They shouldn't get a "blanket allowance for it."

The California Chamber of Commerce continues to oppose SB-259, testified one of its lobbyists, Laura Bennett. Bill sponsor Sen. Aisha Wahab (D) hasn’t been amenable to the Chamber’s requests to remove geolocation data from the bill or at least narrow it to precise geolocation information, Bennett said. Nor has Wahab been open to the business group’s request to make it enforceable only by the state attorney general, Bennett added. Currently, the proposed law would be enforced under the state’s unfair competition law, which allows individuals to sue.

Meanwhile, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Suzette Martinez Vallardares (R) said she worries that a different surveillance-pricing measure (AB-446) could have the unintended effect of raising prices. Unlike the more specific data-use limitations in Wahab’s bill, AB-446 would generally restrict the practice (see 2506240023).

Chris Micheli, speaking on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California and CalChamber, said those groups would drop their opposition if the bill was amended to allow discounts and remove its private right of action.

California Grocers Association lobbyist Louie Brown similarly opposed the measure's ban on using technology to provide discounts, which he said would prevent stores from giving Coca-Cola discounts to people who previously purchased it. Grocers might understand if the bill only prohibited using so-called surveillance tech to increase prices, he said.

However, Sen. John Laird (D) asked if exempting discounts would effectively gut the bill. Sponsor Assemblymember Chris Ward (D) agreed it would.

Committee Chair Thomas Umberg (D) noted that the private right of action in the bill provides injunctive relief only, with attorney fees only available to the prevailing party. “So the typical private right of action we are familiar with is not applicable here.”

New York state on Monday paused enforcement on a surveillance-pricing law due to pending litigation (see 2507150052). Meanwhile at a law conference the same day, panelists predicted more state enforcement of surveillance is coming (see 2507150018).

The California Senate committee also heard testimony on Ward's location privacy bill (AB-322), which Consumer Reports supports and industry groups oppose (see 2507090028). However, the committee recessed before hearing opposition. Before the break, Umberg told Ward to look out for some "late-breaking" amendments proposed to address "some serious law enforcement concerns."

"While we're sensitive to efforts to strengthen consumer privacy,” explained Shane LeVigne, lobbying for Fraternal Order of Police and California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, “this bill would significantly impair law enforcement's ability to investigate crimes, locate missing people and respond to immediate threats to public safety.” He said deleting or not being able to access location data, “especially in situations involving exigent circumstances, could eliminate leads before an investigation even begins.”

The police groups suggested changes that could get them to neutral if adopted, said LeVigne. Ward pledged to work with them to tighten the bill.

By our deadline Tuesday, not enough members of the Assembly Committee had voted to clear SB-259, while the Senate panel hadn’t yet begun voting on AB-446 or AB-322. Both committees resumed meeting later Tuesday.