HB 6099 is a companion bill to HB 6098 that embeds the same flawed dynamic pricing ban into Michigan’s price display laws, doubling down on vague definitions that give businesses no clear way to know whether routine pricing practices violate the law. By layering this ambiguous prohibition onto a second statute, Michigan retailers — especially small businesses relying on common pricing tools —would face litigation exposure under two separate legal frameworks for the same conduct. This bill won’t stop predatory pricing; it will drive up costs for Michiganders.
NetChoice Letter of Opposition to Michigan HB 6099
June 17, 2026
House Regulatory Reform Committee
Members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee,
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association dedicated to making the internet safe for free enterprise and free expression, we respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB 6099, a proposed amendment to the Shopping Reform and Modernization Act. While we share the sponsors’ concern about exploitative pricing practices, HB 6099 would compound the same legal problems found in its companion bill, HB 6098, by embedding an overbroad and ambiguous “surveillance pricing” prohibition directly into Michigan’s price display requirements. The result is a layered regulatory structure that doubles down on flawed definitions and creates new compliance burdens for Michigan retailers without meaningfully protecting consumers.
HB 6099 Amplifies the Core Definitional Flaws of HB 6098
HB 6099 wholly imports the definition of “surveillance pricing” from HB 6098, describing it as a pricing system that increases the price of a consumer item based on personally identifiable data, including device type, MAC address, IP address, cookies, geolocation, search history or purchasing habits. All of the definitional problems that plague HB 6098 would apply with equal force here. The bill provides no reference point against how an “increase” can be measured: is the comparison to the price offered to another consumer, to the same consumer at an earlier time or to some theoretical baseline price that does not exist in the market?
By adding this undefined prohibition onto the Shopping Reform and Modernization Act’s price display framework, HB 6099 creates an additional layer of confusion. A retailer subject to the Act’s existing requirement to display the “total price” of a consumer item must now determine whether that displayed price has been set using prohibited data. Because the bill does not specify what a compliant, “non surveillance” price looks like, a retailer has no reliable way to verify that the price on the shelf or screen satisfies the new requirement. This transforms a straightforward disclosure obligation into an open-ended compliance minefield.
The Bill’s Structure Creates Unworkable Compliance Requirements for Price Display
The Shopping Reform and Modernization Act exists to ensure consumers can see the price of a product before they purchase it. That is a sensible and widely supported consumer protection goal. HB 6099, however, converts this pricing transparency mechanism into a vehicle for regulating how prices are set — a fundamentally different and far more complex regulatory question. Price display rules are binary: either a price is displayed, or it is not. Pricing system rules require analysis of what data inputs were used, what algorithms were applied and whether the resulting price constitutes an “increase” over some undefined baseline. Retailers, their compliance teams and courts are poorly positioned to answer those questions under the framework of a price tagging statute.
The bill’s inclusion of carve-outs for “dynamic pricing” and “retailer loyalty programs,” mirroring those in HB 6098, does not resolve this problem. A loyalty program that displays a member price alongside a non-member price could plausibly be characterized as either a protected “decrease” for members or a prohibited “increase” for non-members, depending on how a complaint is framed. Embedding this ambiguity into a price display statute means that any customer who sees a price variation at the shelf has a potential hook for a claim, even when no exploitative conduct occurred. This is precisely the kind of ambiguity that invites litigation rather than preventing harm.
The Dependent Enactment Clause Does Not Cure the Bill’s Problems
HB 6099 includes an unusual provision: it takes effect only if HB 6098 is also enacted into law. If both bills pass, Michigan businesses will face overlapping prohibitions across two separate statutes — the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Shopping Reform and Modernization Act — governed by the same flawed definition, enforced through private rights of action and subject to the same speculative litigation risk.
This will affect small and mid-sized Michigan-based businesses the most. Businesses that rely on off-the-shelf pricing tools to remain competitive with large national chains will now face potential exposure under two separate legal frameworks for using the same technology. Unlike large out-of-state competitors operating beyond Michigan’s jurisdiction, local retailers will either pass along the cost of redesigning their pricing systems or face the prospect of defending themselves against opportunistic litigation — costs that will ultimately be passed on to Michiganders.
Conclusion
NetChoice and our members support meaningful protections against genuinely predatory pricing practices that exploit vulnerable consumers. But effective consumer protection requires clear, targeted rules that businesses can actually follow and courts can consistently apply. HB 6099 does not meet that standard. This bill would harm the very people it is designed to protect, and do nothing to combat price gougers or others taking advantage of vulnerable people.
We urge the Committee to oppose HB 6099. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Tyler Fields
Government Affairs Associate, NetChoice (The views of NetChoice expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of all NetChoice members.)
NetChoice is a trade association that works to protect free expression and promote free enterprise online.