On March 16, 2026, New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James rallied in support of the “One Fair Price Package” — a pair of bills aimed at curbing algorithmic and surveillance pricing in New York. Together, the bills would prohibit the use of personalized algorithmic pricing based on consumer data, ban electronic shelf labels in large food and drug retailers, and create robust enforcement mechanisms and private rights of action. The announcement from New York comes shortly after New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill backed legislation to ban what she has called “surveillance” pricing, and after California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an investigative sweep focused on businesses that use consumer data to individualize prices for their goods or services earlier this year.

Emerging Trend of State-Led Regulation of Algorithmic Pricing Practices

The New York legislation is the latest development in an emerging trend of states regulating the use of AI in retail pricing. Since 2025, numerous states have introduced or passed algorithmic pricing legislation including, among others, New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Previously, on November 10, 2025, New York passed the Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which imposed a disclosure requirement on companies that use algorithms to set prices for goods and services based on consumers’ personal data disclosures. In addition, California enacted legislation making it unlawful for any person to use algorithmic pricing as part of a contract or conspiracy to restrain trade or commerce. The One Fair Price Package goes far further than previous state efforts to curb algorithmic pricing. If enacted, the bills would impose an outright ban on the use of algorithmic and surveillance-based pricing in many contexts.

Overview of the One Fair Price Package

The One Fair Price Package is comprised of two bills designed to curb personalized algorithmic pricing and combat high or discriminatory prices.

A9349, Ban on Personalized Algorithmic Pricing and “Surveillance” Data Use, would amend New York’s General Business Law to restrict how companies use data and algorithms to set prices for consumers.

• Broad applicability across industries: Applies to virtually any “entity” doing business in New York — including natural persons, firms, organizations, partnerships, associations, and corporations — with limited exceptions for certain insurance and financial institutions.
• Bans on surveillance and personalized pricing: Prohibits entities from setting, advertising, or presenting prices using personalized algorithmic pricing, and from collecting, using, retaining, or disclosing personal data to facilitate surveillance pricing.
• Disclosure obligations: Permits automated pricing based only on nonpersonal data, subject to rigorous disclosure requirements.
• Two-track enforcement: Authorizes the AG to seek cease‑and‑desist orders, injunctive relief, and civil penalties, and creates a private right of action with per violation statutory damages and other available remedies.

A9396, Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act, targets algorithmic and surveillance-based pricing in large brick-and-mortar food and drug retail establishments:

• Narrower, sector‑specific coverage: Applies to food and drug retail establishments that meet specific size and sales criteria.
• Ban on digital and personalized pricing tools:Prohibits covered retailers from using electronic or digital shelf labels to display prices.
• Limits on sensitive and youth data:Restricts the collection and use of data about minors under 17 for targeted ads or personalized pricing and forbids using protected class characteristics (e.g., race, sex, age, religion) to set or vary prices or benefits.
• Expansive enforcement and remedies:Allows the AG, consumers, employees, and labor organizations to seek injunctions, per violation civil penalties, and other remedies.

Why It Matters

If enacted, the One Fair Price Package in New York would force covered businesses to reassess their use of pricing algorithms and data-driven surveillance practices, and to dismantle in-store electronic pricing labels. The bills would also significantly increase retailers’ exposure to AG enforcement and potentially private class actions, posing a risk of high statutory damages and injunctive relief. More broadly, the initiative reflects a growing national trend in which state AGs — rather than federal regulators — are driving the rules for algorithmic and AI-driven pricing practices.

What Businesses Can Do to Prepare

Although the bills are not yet law, there has been an increase in proposed legislation and a concern that states may follow California’s lead citing violations of respective state comprehensive consumer privacy laws tied to the use of individualized pricing models, particularly where there is a lack of transparency and a failure to comply with the “purpose limitation” principles in those laws. As a result, businesses should take steps now to prepare and mitigate potential compliance and enforcement risks. Our proposed steps for mitigating compliance and enforcement risk can be found here.

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies. He has significant experience handling actions with federal agencies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as single plaintiff and class action litigation for clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, health care, pharmaceutical, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile state attorneys general, FTC, and CFPB investigations by advising clients through these complex government inquiries. He assists clients through the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Matthew J. Berns Drawing on his experience in senior leadership roles in the New Jersey Attorney General’s and Governor’s Offices and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matt provides an insider’s perspective when guiding clients through complex government investigations, litigation, and other actions.
	Samuel E. “Gene” Fishel Gene is a former regulator with two decades of experience who has overseen state privacy and cybersecurity regulation enforcement, led national, multistate attorneys general privacy investigations, and prosecuted computer crimes at the state and federal levels. He has served at the forefront of state attorney general and federal enforcement, and utilizes this experience to proficiently represent client interests.
	Jeff Johnson Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Zoe Schloss Zoe represents clients in litigation and government investigations. As former deputy attorney general for the Delaware Department of Justice, she is an experienced litigator who understands the enforcement priorities that impact her clients. Zoe works with individuals and corporate entities in highly regulated industries, including financial services, health care, and energy.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Nick Gouverneur Nick is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as a member of the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	William LaRosa Bill represents clients in complex regulatory investigations, state attorneys general matters, and enforcement proceedings, drawing on his experience as a former assistant U.S. attorney and private sector litigator in high stakes, multistate AG and regulatory matters.
	Philip Nickerson Philip represents clients in sectors such as financial, tech, real estate, and energy in a range of litigation matters. He is experienced in matters involving trade secrets, government investigations, commercial contracts, construction and product defect.
	Lane Page Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher is an attorney within the Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice, based in the Richmond office. She joined our firm after working in personal injury and medical malpractice for a Virginia trial law firm. Dascher brings varied legal experience to the firm with strong litigation and regulatory strategy capabilities.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Timothy Shyu Timothy is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.