The sweeping “covered entity” definition central to HB 5756 burdens Illinois’s small businesses with the same compliance costs as major national retailers, while large out-of-state companies can structure around the law entirely. Adding a private right of action on top of these vague definitions doesn’t deter bad actors; it invites class action lawyers to target local businesses over ambiguous conduct.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to Illinois HB 5756, Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act
May 1, 2026
Dear Members of the Joint House Judiciary – Civil Committee:
NetChoice, a trade association of leading internet companies committed to free expression and free enterprise online, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 5756, the Algorithmic Pricing Transparency Act. We share the sponsors’ concern about predatory uses of personal data in pricing — and we appreciate that Illinois has taken a more targeted, disclosure-based approach than some other states. However, as written, and particularly if it were to include a private right of action, this legislation would transform a workable transparency framework into a litigation engine that harms Illinois businesses and consumers alike.
The “Covered Entity” Definition Sweeps Far Too Broadly
The bill defines a “covered entity” as “any person or entity that sells or offers to sell goods or services through an online platform to consumers in this State.” That definition contains no size threshold, no revenue minimum and no meaningful limiting principle. A one-person shop selling handmade goods through a personal website is subject to the same obligations as a major national retailer. Small and mid-size Illinois businesses — the companies least equipped to absorb compliance costs — are treated identically to the large platforms that critics of surveillance pricing most often have in mind.
The definition is also complicated by what it leaves undefined. “Online platform” is never specified in the bill. Does a business’s own website qualify? A mobile app? A listing on a third-party marketplace? Depending on how that term is eventually interpreted by a court or the Attorney General, a retailer selling through multiple channels could face entirely different obligations across each of them, with no clear guidance from the statute itself.
The definition also creates a significant competitive asymmetry. Because it reaches any entity selling to Illinois consumers — regardless of where that entity is located — large out-of-state and multinational companies can structure their operations to minimize Illinois legal exposure in ways that Illinois-based businesses simply cannot. The businesses most likely to bear the full weight of this law are the homegrown Illinois companies the state most wants to support.
These Definition Problems are Significantly Worsened by a Private Right of Action
We understand the Committee intends to advance a version of this bill that includes a private right of action. We urge the Committee to reconsider. The definitional breadth described above is a manageable problem when enforcement rests with the Attorney General, who can exercise prosecutorial discretion and prioritize genuine bad actors. It becomes a serious and immediate litigation threat the moment any private plaintiff — or class action counsel — can invoke it.
The predictable result is not deterrence of bad actors. It is class action filings against retailers and platforms over ambiguous conduct, with businesses forced to choose between abandoning widely-used pricing tools or accepting open-ended litigation exposure. Smaller Illinois businesses, which rely on off-the-shelf pricing software to remain competitive, will bear this burden most acutely — while large out-of-state competitors, who can structure around Illinois law, will not.
HB 5756 should appropriately channel enforcement through the Attorney General under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. That is the right approach for a novel statutory framework operating on broadly defined conduct. The Attorney General can set enforcement priorities, investigate systematically and bring actions proportionate to actual harm — exactly what this area requires.
In conclusion, we urge the Committee to narrow the covered entity definition, preserve the Attorney General enforcement model, and resist adding a private right of action. A transparency-based approach with targeted definitions and state enforcement is a reasonable framework. The same framework with overbroad definitions and private litigation attached becomes a source of serious competitive harm to the Illinois businesses and workers this bill is meant to protect.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Committee to oppose HB 5756 in its current form.
Amy Bos
Vice President of Government Affairs, 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.