This bill defines “surveillance pricing” so broadly that it would sweep in the everyday personalized discounting practices that make groceries and products of all types more affordable for New Yorkers, while doing little to address illegal pricing practices that NetChoice and the Council simultaneously oppose. New York State has existing laws on the books regulating algorithmic pricing, and a city-by-city patchwork of conflicting regulations would only cause confusion and threaten the discounts New Yorkers rely on.
NetChoice Testimony in Opposition to NYC Int. No. 891 – Prohibiting Surveillance Pricing
July 2, 2026
City Council of the City of New York
Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection
Members of the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection:
On behalf of NetChoice, a trade association representing leading internet businesses committed to free expression and free enterprise online, I write to express our opposition to Int. 891. NetChoice shares the Council’s interest in protecting New York consumers from genuinely deceptive pricing practices and price gauging, but Int. 891 does not accomplish that goal. Instead, it defines “surveillance pricing” so broadly that it would sweep in the everyday personalized discounting practices that make groceries and products of all types more affordable for New Yorkers, while doing little to address illegal pricing practices Council appears concerned about.
The Bill’s Definitions Capture Ordinary Business Practices that Benefit New Yorkers
Int. 891 defines surveillance technology to include any “sensors, cameras, device tracking, biometric monitoring, or tracking of internet browsing history” capable of “gathering or inferring personal data from a consumer’s behavior, characteristics, location, past purchases, or other attributes.” Read literally, this definition captures the basic infrastructure of modern retail and e-commerce: a retailer’s website analytics, a loyalty app that remembers a customer’s past orders, a security camera at a store entrance, or a browser cookie that lets a returning shopper avoid re-entering their cart. Combined with an equally broad definition of “personal data”—any data that “could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly” to a consumer, device, or household—the bill leaves businesses of every size guessing at which routine data uses might trigger liability.
Additionally, the prohibition applies whenever a price differs based “in whole or in part” on personal data collected through personalization technology. That standard offers no safe harbor for legitimate pricing factors, such as inventory levels, delivery costs, or regional demand, that happen to correlate in some way with data a business holds about a customer. Businesses will not know in advance whether a routine pricing decision satisfies the law until they are already facing a civil penalty.
Dynamic Pricing Benefits Consumers, the Environment, and Businesses
Dynamic pricing is often what helps businesses afford to cut costs for New Yorkers and sell soon-to-expire groceries at a lower price, both helping New Yorkers afford essentials and saving produce from the landfill.
Retailers use purchase history and browsing behavior to offer personalized discounts, flash sales, and coupons to price-sensitive shoppers; airlines and hotels use similar tools to fill unsold inventory at a discount rather than leave it empty; and small businesses increasingly rely on the same delivery and e-commerce platforms as their larger competitors to offer personalized deals that help them compete, while making prices affordable for families. A blanket ban on data-informed pricing —subject only to narrow, sign-up-based exceptions risks eliminating the critical discounts many New York consumers rely on to feed their families, while doing nothing to stop a business from simply raising prices for everyone.
Existing New York State Law Already Addresses Exploitative Business Practices
New York State already prohibits deceptive and illegal trade practices under General Business Law § 349, and the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection has broad authority to investigate, charge, and fine those bad actors targeting New Yorkers. Int. 891 does not identify a gap in existing law; it instead imposes a new, strict liability civil penalty on top of existing consumer protection law, with penalties of $150, $300, and $1,000 for successive violations that could accumulate rapidly across a large customer base engaged in ordinary personalization. This duplicative policy only places an additional burden on small businesses in New York City, who will be subject to more compliance and regulatory scrutiny as a result, without any additional benefit to the consumer.
Some have suggested amending Int. 891 to include a private right of action, allowing individual consumers or plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue businesses directly for alleged violations. Given the bill’s sweeping, ambiguous definitions, this would not protect consumers—it would open the floodgates to speculative lawsuits against businesses for ordinary personalization practices like loyalty discounts or delivery-fee variation. Small businesses without in-house counsel would face pressure to settle meritless claims simply to avoid litigation costs, and even large employers would need to divert resources from operations to legal defense. A private right of action turns a compliance question into a litigation risk on every transaction, making New York City a uniquely hostile place to do business compared to jurisdictions without such exposure.
A Patchwork of Pricing Mandates Unfairly Burdens Consumers & Businesses Operating Across Jurisdictions
Nearly every business is affected by Int. 891—from national online retailers to delivery platforms to local shops selling through e-commerce operate across city and state lines. A New York City-specific pricing mandate, layered on top of the already existing state law, the One Fair Pricing Act, requires businesses to build compliance systems tailored to a single municipality’s unique definition of “surveillance pricing,” a compliance burden that unfairly harms smaller businesses.
For these businesses that exist across municipal lines, the effect on consumers is just as harmful. A customer that shops at one location of a grocery store chain in New York City may not be able to receive the same discounts or loyalty benefits on purchases made in the city versus if they chose to shop at a brand located outside the city, causing the consumer to miss out on loyalty benefits and discounts, and if a shopper resorts to prioritizing a location outside the city, tax revenue for New York City.
Conclusion
NetChoice supports meaningful consumer protections against deceptive pricing. Int. 891, however, does not meet that goal. Its overly broad definitions, internally inconsistent exceptions, and redundancy with existing law would create significant compliance uncertainty for businesses of every size while eliminating pricing practices that benefit New York consumers every day. We respectfully urge the Committee to reject Int. 891.
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.