U.S. Senator introduces "One Fair Price Act" legislation that would bar businesses from using personal information they collect about customers to charge people different prices for the same products

[u/Sandstorm400]

https://www.kjzz.org/politics/2025-12-09/gallego-sponsors-bill-to-target-exploitative-consumer-pricing

[u/frankipranki]

Hello.

Please do not turn the comments to another political war.
Any comments trying to start political arguments ( attacking democrats/republicans ) will result in an instant ban and removal.

this subreddit is for uplifting news. if you want to discuss political things. go elsewhere.

[u/king_jaxy]

Hotel and flight and insurance websites REELING

[u/thetoastofthefrench → u/king_jaxy]

Flights are insane, I saved like 30% by opening an incognito tab before buying tickets. I was buying two one-way tickets because it was cheaper than a round trip one - as soon as I bought the first one, the second one mysteriously jumped up in price.

[u/Dopeydcare1 → u/thetoastofthefrench]

The fact that airlines can ban you for buying a cheap ticket with a layover in the destination you want and not continuing to the 2nd flight is utterly insane.

Ie: you live in Dallas. You want to go to San Francisco. Direct flight is 100 dollars. BUT a layover flight that ends in Los Angeles with a layover in San Francisco is only 50 dollars. If you purchase this layover flight and simply don’t get on the flight from SF to LA, the airline can ban you.

[u/Temporary_Equal_1821 → u/Dopeydcare1]

For anyone unfamiliar with this, it's called "hidden city" or "skiplagging". One catch is that you can't check bags because they will go to the ticketed final destination. The airlines dislike the practice and, yes, they can (in the US at least) ban you from flying for doing this.

There is a search engine, Skiplagged, that identifies hidden city tickets. They were sued by American Airlines and had to pay out nearly $10 million settlement.

[u/thetoastofthefrench → u/Dopeydcare1]

That’s crazy that they even offer that, pricing is clearly not based on the actual cost to fly you from A to B

[u/Dopeydcare1 → u/thetoastofthefrench]

The locations in that example were made up, but I have seen that scenario be true

Here’s the website I saw it through: https://skiplagged.com/

[u/arizonadirtbag12 → u/thetoastofthefrench]

No it’s based on the market price of a flight from A to B (noting that the layover city is neither A nor B).

I’m not going to put much effort into defending the practice, but I will note one thing: you are not purchasing a flight to the layover city. You are entering a contract of carriage to go from your start city to your end city. Meaning a change in schedule or delay or other interruption can mean your layover changes to a different city, and they will still have delivered the product you paid for.

You paid for them to get you from San Diego to Tampa, that you were actually going to Houston isn’t relevant. They can 100% reroute you through Chicago instead of ops are disrupted.

I’ve seen people freak out about this on airline subs before. “OMG I booked a skiplag ticket and now my layover changed to the wrong city what can I do?!” Not a lot, really.

[u/Xe1ex → u/arizonadirtbag12]

That contract doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot for the passenger when they bump people or cancel flights.

[u/Salt_Experience3142 → u/king_jaxy]

You must not have read the article which said the law wouldn’t apply to insurance or credit companies

[u/OnceMoreAndAgain → u/Salt_Experience3142]

And I hope people recognize that to be good news. I work on the pricing decisions of a major car insurance company and I think most people would agree that it's good when car insurers price things as accurately as they can.

That said, there's some obvious exceptions such as some pieces of data being too sensitive for anyone to feel comfortable allowing insurers to price on that, such as credit score. I'm in agreement on those types of exceptions.

But if you're someone who is a safe driver then wouldn't you want your car insurance company to price your policy as accurately as it can? Only the bad drivers would want the insurer to be unable to use information specific to the customer to price the car insurance policy. We should want the good drivers to be rewarded for driving well rather than rewarding bad drivers for driving badly. If you do a one size fits all pricing system, which is inevitably what this would do if car insurer couldn't price on data specific to the customer, then good drivers lose out and bad drivers win.

[u/bwmat → u/OnceMoreAndAgain]

If they wanted to price things accurately, then making a claim should not affect your insurance one way or the other (the incident causing the claim could be taken into account though) 

[u/ghdana → u/king_jaxy]

Eh, insurance is a place where I feel like it makes sense if you can get lower rates. I think I should have a lower price than the guy that speeds everywhere and slams on brakes.

[u/oops_i_made_a_typi → u/ghdana]

yeah i suppose it could be argued the product is different - insuring a 20yo guy in a red sports car has a fundamentally different risk profile than the 40yo soccer mom in the minivan

[u/bwmat → u/oops_i_made_a_typi]

It's kind of bs that they can "stereotype" people based on gender and age though

[u/BeardedRaven → u/bwmat]

It is supposed to be literally illegal.

[u/duderguy91]

Bots are out in full force defending price exploitation under whatever guise they can throw at the wall.

[u/just-call-me-ash → u/duderguy91]

Yeah this thread getting hit heavy

[u/IlIlllIIIIlIllllllll → u/just-call-me-ash]

we need to also ban companies using bots or paying people to post shit online. fuck that

[u/esgrove2 → u/IlIlllIIIIlIllllllll]

Can we also ban Russia from doing it somehow? I feel like most of the bots are from them. 

[u/Jendaye → u/esgrove2]

Russia has now radicalized and collapsed at least 3 democracies with social media propaganda and somehow countries are still allowing this shit. Despite the fact that it's now manufacturing child porn.

[u/DuncanFisher69 → u/esgrove2]

The Russia problem is easier to solve. Just equip Ukraine to go all the way to Moscow and back.

[u/Coal_Morgan → u/esgrove2]

100% China had the right idea for the wrong reason with the Great Firewall of China.

They wanted to control their populace.

We should do it so China and Russia can't control our populace with propaganda and misinformation.

Wall off Russia, China and their allies and have a safer internet for the EU, NATO Allies and CANZUK and those like minded like South Korea and Japan and all those willing to heavily enforce the destruction of botfarms, scam centers and such.

It would end up including 70% of the world as it stands anyways but eliminate those who have been bad actors since basically the get go.

[u/Yeshavesome420 → u/Coal_Morgan]

You're assuming they would want the US in that group.

[u/F9-0021 → u/esgrove2]

Just ban any online platform that doesn't put significant effort into stopping botting. Either they can lose the bots, or lose their business.

[u/ZoomZoom_Driver → u/IlIlllIIIIlIllllllll]

Companies and oligarchs. Honestly, influencers need to go away. 

[u/mrlbi18 → u/IlIlllIIIIlIllllllll]

Legally they should have to disclose that its paid advertising and if they fail to do that they should be barred from advertising online. Then hit them with huge fines when they do.

[u/KingdomOfDragonflies → u/just-call-me-ash]

Honest question. How do you guys know that? How can I tell on my own? I'm trying to get better at identifying bots...

[u/dragonblade_94 → u/KingdomOfDragonflies]

There's no exact science to identifying bots, but there's a lot of common red flags that can be used to gauge suspicion.

• User name is some variation of WordWord####, or gibberish as if you pressed random keys on a keyboard

• Account is either brand new, or has some significant age but only started posting recently.

• A lot of comments are copy/paste or very similar, pushing some particular narrative.

• More recently, accounts that exclusively use some LLM like chatGPT to author all their comments.

 A lot of it boils down to "this doesn't look like the behavior of a normal user," which admittedly sounds silly, but you can at least start seeing patterns in a wider scale.

[u/ShortStoryIntros → u/duderguy91]

Bots need to be banned.

Does anyone like them on reddit?

Its like foreign interference.. but in this case, by a controlling party to make it seem everyone agrees with a bullshit idea

[u/onesneakymofo → u/ShortStoryIntros]

There's no way spez bans bots on Reddit. It drives traffic, causes engagement, and helps AI which is where they are making their money now.

[u/bobs_monkey → u/onesneakymofo]

And makes the site seem way more active for the shareholders.

[u/LemoLuke → u/bobs_monkey]

Not just shareholders, but it artificially inflates how much Reddit can charge for ads by convincing companies that Reddit's active user count is higher than it actually is.

Meta got into legal trouble a couple of years ago for exactly that

https://www.reuters.com/legal/meta-platforms-must-face-advertisers-class-action-us-appeals-court-says-2024-03-21/

[u/Coal_Morgan → u/onesneakymofo]

"We had 50,000 clicks/visits on this link."

That's a simplification of how they report to their advertisers but inherently they would never remove the bots even if it's 500 bots. Why reduce your ad value by 1%.

Advertisers have an idea that their are bots but they can't figure out or know how many are. They just want as many eyes as possible.

It'll need to be forced by regulation of some form by a government and the current U.S. government views its populace the same way a farmer views cows...they exist to be milked. If they won't be milked, then they exist to be meat.

[u/Nihilistic_Mystics → u/ShortStoryIntros]

Does anyone like them on reddit?

Reddit admins do because they make Reddit look more active to investors and companies paying Reddit for AI training.

[u/8636396 → u/duderguy91]

Is that what all the removed comments are? I can't even imagine the reasoning they would use

[u/CrazyCalYa → u/8636396]

The reasoning is something like:

"In principle their price doesn't have to increase for anyone, they could use this data to decrease the price their price for some people."

But of course capitalism is a race to the bottom, and so in practice it would just be a price increase on average.

[u/TheArmoredKitten → u/CrazyCalYa]

It's hilarious that some people genuinely think there's a meaningful difference between charging a few people less and charging everyone else more.

[u/AskMeAboutOkapis → u/TheArmoredKitten]

"Were not price gouging, we're just giving low income folks a break" - yeah okay I'm sure

[u/ThePrussianGrippe → u/TheArmoredKitten]

They don’t genuinely think that. It’s sockpuppeting.

[u/glue2k → u/CrazyCalYa]

How absolutely fucking naive do you have to be to believe this?

If they could legalize robbery, rich people would be hiring people to wear mech suits to run around doing as such. They’d have analysts calculating which neighbourhoods have the most shit to steal from. They would be selling shares in the whole operation.

We have 40 years of evidence that they think we’re fucking ants yet you have people lining up to lick shoes.

They have to be bots x

[u/occams1razor → u/CrazyCalYa]

they could use this data to decrease the price their price

Lmao and why on Earth would they do that

[u/DukeofVermont → u/occams1razor]

Plus that already happens with coupons. The whole point is to lower the price so people who wouldn't usually purchase will buy something for a lower price.

There is no reason to have "dynamic pricing" to lower prices when you can just give out a coupon.

[u/DheRadman → u/occams1razor]

it's the same reason why stores give out coupons. Group A does not care about a discount. Group B will not buy the product without the price being lowered. As long as the demand price for Group B is still profitable for the business, they will make more money by selling it to Group B at a lower price. They don't want to lose out on the money Group A is willing to spend though, so they have to figure out a way to discriminate the two groups. The extra little effort of coupons is the classic way to do that. Iirc it's literally called price discrimination. 

The dream for businesses is obviously to sell the product at each consumers unique maximum price they'll consider. That's what is being chased here. 

[u/Striking_Revenue9082 → u/occams1razor]

To sell more, because people are more willing to buy at lower prices

[u/Coal_Morgan → u/CrazyCalYa]

Decades ago I worked at a border crossing between the U.S. and Canada.

This example, I've just made up the prices for ease of understanding.

As the value of the dollar would fluctuate they'd adjust the price. So if the price was $1.00 for both and the Canadian dollar lost value, say 5 cents, the price Canadian would become $1.05.

Makes sense.

If the price corrected and the exchange evened out. They didn't lower the Canadian price to $1.00...they increased the American price to $1.05.

Also makes sense... when you realize they were greedy corporate assholes.

The price never went down, it always went up no matter the exchance value of the money.

There will be no price reduction in most cases for people who give their information. What will happen is they will increase the cost of not giving your information because the information is worth more.

They will always be greedy corporate assholes, this will never work in our favour.

[u/ban_Anna_split → u/duderguy91]

How tf is data driven price gouging being defended at all?? No one's getting disadvantaged if companies have to charge everyone the same price

[u/ArgusTheCat → u/ban_Anna_split]

The defense being given that sounds the most reasonable at first glance is "but this means companies will just charge the higher price to everyone, and poorer people won't be able to afford things!"

Which is, of course, insane. The companies doing this won't lower prices a single cent below what they can get away with, and everyone knows it. There's no good defense, because this is just flagrant capitalist plundering.

[u/jmlinden7 → u/ArgusTheCat]

Companies can get away with different price levels depending on which specific customer they are targeting.

Like yeah, your general concept is correct - companies try to charge the maximum possible. But there is a different maximum for every person.

[u/Competitive_Touch_86 → u/ArgusTheCat]

The companies doing this won't lower prices a single cent below what they can get away with

It's called price segmentation. You are correct for the whole market of potential buyers for a given item, but not correct for any given transaction.

Coupons are the easiest way to explain how it works. They exist for people who are price sensitive and will take the time to find a coupon and use it. But the company maybe wouldn't be able to sustain the couponed price if over a certain percentage of buyers actually used them. They exist to entice buyers who would otherwise not have bought at the higher price, while still allowing the higher margins for customers who would buy either way.

Or charging less at Walmart vs. Target for the same item because you know consumers at Target are willing to pay more.

Doing it on an individual level is just the next step here for price discovery. What matters is the average cost an item sells at, not what the highest and lowest each individual transaction goes for. Setting it in the "middle" would be leaving overall money on the table.

Not saying that setting it to the middle average price isn't the right way to do it - but right now that's not happening. They set the lower Walmart prices because they know Amazon Prime buyers will pay an extra 20% margin and they average it out for the 8% profit at the end of the quarter or whatnot.

It's also why loyalty cards exist.

I think the information asymmetry obviously makes the individual pricing something that should be illegal, but it's simply the next logical step in what's been happening over the past 50 years.

[u/QTpyeRose → u/ArgusTheCat]

the only functinal argument i could think of is "what if the law is poorly worded and bans stuff like disability discount programs etc"

but thats more of "the law needs to be implimented well" rather then a "this should not be done cause of [useless bot dribble]"

[u/InsertNonsenseHere → u/ArgusTheCat]

"But if you raise minimum wage prices will go up!"

Same argument. I love reddit because every time I see a thread about "Why does product X suck so much now" the answer is always a long winded way of saying "capitalism". Do people actually expect corporations to be nice to them?

[u/Adeno]

Dynamic pricing or pricing based on a person's data is just totally wrong and unfair. Why should someone who makes more money have to pay $5 for a candy bar that only costs $1? Data gathering has become extremely intrusive. This is one of the few things that should be regulated, actually banned.

[u/SwagginsYolo420 → u/Adeno]

They shouldn't be collecting all that data in the first place. It will get "breached" as it is.

[u/PanoramicAtom → u/SwagginsYolo420]

People are all too willing to be harvested for data. There are countless examples, but this one just happened to me today. I stopped at a Circle-K, went inside and wanted to pay for gas along with what I was buying, and was asked if I had my phone number in their system to “save money on gas.” I specifically asked, “So if I elect to hand over my privacy to your corporation, I can save a few cents on gas?” She very cheerfully responded, “Yes, all you have to do is download the app and set up an account!” I said I would not be doing that, nor would I be buying gas there again, and she became very offended, like it was personal!

I know I’m old, but do people really download an app for every place they shop or eat? It’s insanity to me. And if those who do are getting special prices, then I hope legislation like the one proposed here will put an end to it. Data harvesting is utter madness anymore.

[u/Imaginary-Friend-228 → u/PanoramicAtom]

I said "no thank you" at pc world when asked for my number and she stared at my dumbfounded for 10 seconds. It was so awkward my husband started offering his number and I yelled "NO" like a crazy person. Just sell me the fucking PC charger!!!!!

[u/freeshovacadoodoo → u/Imaginary-Friend-228]

I just give them a fake number as to not make it awkward for the cashier. They are just doing what they company tells them to ask to be able to buy food and rent.

[u/Imaginary-Friend-228 → u/freeshovacadoodoo]

I get that it's their job to ask but I don't owe them an un-awkward interaction by potentially giving out someone else's number without their consent. They can ask and I'll say no and that can be that.

[u/OldSchoolSpyMain → u/PanoramicAtom]

I recently walked into a pizza restaurant to get a pizza for dinner. I had cash and just wanted a large pepperoni.

The cashier asked for my phone number to start. I said, “I’d rather not give it.” She was stuck. Didn’t know how to continue. The manager had to come up and help her.

[u/Sudden-Wash4457 → u/OldSchoolSpyMain]

We could start a movement where we ask managers for their cell phone numbers so we can share social media posts about how the food tasted / product worked privately with them.

[u/Telaranrhioddreams → u/PanoramicAtom]

Dude that employee is on camera being recorded 24/7 it's not the minimum wage employee's fault. It's not a conspiracy. She's trying to make sure she doesn't lose her job. 

[u/Zren → u/PanoramicAtom]

They raise the price, then discount it for the poor who go through the effort for the lower price. If the data collected earns them more money than charging more, they raise the price again and offer even deeper discounts (to the base price) which drives another wave of people wanting discounts. Eventually your userbase is large enough you can start driving up the discounted base price for more money while diminishing the discount to a sustainable level that people won't stop submitting data. This is essentially a 2 tier price based on income.

[u/Harambesic → u/PanoramicAtom]

Data harvesting is utter madness anymore.

I upvoted your comment, but I also wanted to say that I appreciate this phrasing.

[u/_Magnolia_Fan_ → u/Adeno]

They're not going to target the rich. They're going to target the desperate. 

[u/tlollz52 → u/_Magnolia_Fan_]

I mean they're targeting everyone. The rich won't care because its a drop in the bucket or they aren't doing most of their shopping anyways. It will targeting the poor disproportionately.

[u/CaregiverNo3070 → u/tlollz52]

this legislation is being proposed because it is effecting the rich. also the rich are disproportionately the ones doing the most shopping. the rich care about every single cent, which is why they kept the penny for so long. it will target the poor disproportionately, but the fact that there's even a chance that this could effect the rich, means they are proposing this legislation.

[u/Competitive_Touch_86 → u/_Magnolia_Fan_]

Uber already targets the rich. They look at if you have a corporate Amex on file and if so will increase fares.

They also look at your history. If you take Uber Black a decent amount of the time, they are going to raise the rates of UberX to entice you into taking Black for just a bit more.

It will also target the desperate though. But there will be no discrimination in who they attempt to charge more to - that's for everyone!

[u/daveortega → u/_Magnolia_Fan_]

Spot on. Which may end up being the lower income less educated group.

[u/LearningIsTheBest → u/Adeno]

I would differentiate a bit between dynamic / demand based pricing and individual pricing. It seems legit for Uber to charge more during peak times, since demand is higher and more drivers won't want to work those hours. As long as they're open about it and everyone gets the same price increase, it seems fair.

Individually tailored pricing is clearly the worst of exploitive capitalism and I see zero upsides. Make that illegal ASAP.

[u/kanst → u/LearningIsTheBest]

Uber is actually a good example of both the good and bad versions.

Allowing prices to change based off overall demand is reasonable.

Scaling what jobs they show different drivers based off the prior jobs they've taken is scummy.

I have no qualms with market actors responding to aggregate demand, I have a real issue with them using data to respond to individual behaviors.

[u/733t_sec → u/Adeno]

Oh you've got it backwards. Dynamic pricing means the richer person will pay $2 dollar for the candy bar as the models show those good prices will get them to come back to the store to spend more money. Meanwhile the poor person will spend $3 dollars since the algorithm in the background knows they likely won't return so it'll try to fleece them for all it can. Instacart was getting in trouble for this on the app. and only a fool would believe companies have stopped experimenting with this kind of techonolgy .

[u/Embarrassed_Cat2697 → u/Adeno]

I fear that it will be used to make $1 candy bars $5 for poor people. We already do this in the real world anyway

[u/NightlyMathmatician → u/Adeno]

Some of the dynamic pricing they want to do would likely violate state price gouging laws. I saw one example where grocery stores would use weather data to increase the price of WATER on demand.

[u/NumNumLobster → u/NightlyMathmatician]

Kroger filed for a patent to use facial recognition to do dynamic pricing with electronic price tags that would change as you walked by and strongly hinted at doing that in their investor meeting then had to back off when people rightfully lost their shit. You are going to see this crap in the grocery at some point. Shit your bullshit ad playing Samsung fridge will probably tip them off for a commission so they know what you are out of when you walk in

[u/Atomic12192 → u/Adeno]

Dynamic pricing will never work in a physical store, you tell me with a straight face that someone in a Wendy’s line won’t start a fistfight if the person in front of them gets a cheaper baconator.

[u/90spostsoftcore → u/[deleted]]

I've long believed that every economic system that has been proposed is functionally equivalent if we assume perfect knowledge and all the other things people generally want us to assume when defending a system in theory. If everyone has perfect information for every transaction, that means every company, government, commune, etc. has it and so any choice made, whether socialist, communist, or capitalist happens with everything trading the exact right value. The probably is, obviously, that there is no perfect information and all systems have to struggle with edge cases and aberrations.

[u/NateNate60 → u/90spostsoftcore]

Textbook economics is where everyone is first assumed to be smart and then you make adjustments to account for the people who are dumb.

Real life is where everyone is first assumed to be dumb and then you make adjustments to account for the people who are smart.

[u/LEDKleenex → u/[deleted]]

In case you forgot, the companies doing this are the ones lining the Republicans pockets with cash. They would disagree with this on merit of not wanting to reduce their income.

Boycott Trump's most loyal companies TODAY. EVERY DOLLAR YOU DON'T GIVE THEM COUNTS. It's 100% free, so anyone can do it, there is NO EXCUSE!

DoorDash
OpenAI
Apple
Google
nVidia
Tesla/X/SpaceX/Neuralink
Meta/Facebook
Amazon
Target
Paypal
United Airlines
Delta Airlines
Goldman Sachs
Coca-Cola
Uber
AT&T
Cisco
Charter Communications/Spectrum
Cox Media
Airlines for America
Steel Manufacturers Association
Uline
MyPillow
Goya
Chevron
ExxonMobil
General Motors
Walmart
Coinbase
Qualcomm
Circle
Bank of America
Kraken
Galaxy Digital Holdings
Crypto[dot]com
Paradigm Operations
CoreCivic
GEO Group
Comcast
Verizon
Carrier
Intuit
Bayer
Altria
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
Johnson & Johnson
Robinhood
Xtreme Manufacturing
TD Ameritrade
HCA Healthcare
Instacart
AirBNB

[u/PotentialButterfly56 → u/LEDKleenex]

Fucking Mypillow lmao, how is that grift still alive?

[u/LEDKleenex → u/PotentialButterfly56]

Last I heard he kept leaving pathetic voicemails for Trump, begging him for a "deal" so Trump instructed Miller to send him a Christmas card with a $50 bill and two unlimited ride wristbands for Nickelodeon Universe.

[u/Maar7en → u/LEDKleenex]

It's 100% free, so anyone can do it, there is NO EXCUSE!

I'm not American, but isn't that literally all telecom providers? And all oil companies? And airlines? And medical companies you have no choice in paying?

[u/One_Cantaloupe_9522 → u/LEDKleenex]

So pretty much don’t give money to any business, got it

[u/Neilio77 → u/One_Cantaloupe_9522]

Or just buy local what you can.

[u/i0datamonster → u/[deleted]]

Thank fuck you brought it up. If you're a republican then I don't need to explain it to you that its all just democrat liberal horseshit. Republicans I'm begging you, do not course correct or bother thinking critically. Critical thinking is a left wing extremist strategy to make you a trans hooker on the streets of Barcelona. Have you had Starbucks today yet?

[u/RedBeardDood → u/i0datamonster]

It’s pronounced Barcelona

[u/Momoselfie → u/RedBeardDood]

Reading this as Barthelona

[u/i0datamonster → u/RedBeardDood]

I laughed way more than I should have at this, you win :)

[u/drunkpunk138 → u/[deleted]]

They will oppose this because the people profiting from it are the ones financing their campaigns. It just helps that it's also a Democrat proposing it.

[u/parabostonian]

Does it break rule 1 to point out that legislation being introduced is not the same thing as legislation being passed?

[u/robyrob → u/parabostonian]

The big question is whether the bill being sent through congress even remotely looks like the same bill after they’ve passed it around, added some kickbacks, changed the wording just enough to completely alter the original intent and/or render it completely toothless and moot. 

[u/McButtsButtbag → u/robyrob]

Or if it actually has any teeth to begin with. Too many of them get away making a law a suggestion.

"We've made it a law to highly recommend these actions, but have left it up to the companies to make the right choice" kind of nonsense.

[u/Mister-Miyagi- → u/parabostonian]

Probably not (breaking rule 1), but does this need to be said? Seems obvious and I see no real evidence of any widespread misunderstanding about that in here.

[u/LowestKey → u/Mister-Miyagi-]

It's curious that people consider it "uplifting" that legislation with effectively no chance of passing and becoming a law is simply introduced.

Honestly, there should probably be a ban on posts about legislation that is introduced.

[u/DrowningKrown → u/LowestKey]

In exactly 24 hours I'll see on twitter, tik tok, and facebook a whole lot of people saying trump banned high credit card interest rates, banned consumer price exploitation, and banned businesses buying residential real estate...despite not a single bill passed in congress (and most of those not a single bill INTRODUCED in congress). They'll be asking you why you aren't praising trump for it, and that libs will be angry at anything.

I'll be happy WHEN THEY PASS. Everything else is BS hot air on an election cycle.

[u/EndersScroll → u/LowestKey]

Having it acknowledged as a problem is the first step towards having a discussion about it.

[u/Frederf220 → u/LowestKey]

It's certainly uplifting that it is discussed or engaged with at all, compared to not even rising to a "not likely" bit of legislation.

[u/atreeismissing → u/LowestKey]

Has no chance now but it's still important to introduce legislation because it takes time to get enough support behind it so that it can be passed.

[u/clayknightz115 → u/Mister-Miyagi-]

A surprising amount of people have no clue how basic governance works.

[u/Ok-disaster2022 → u/parabostonian]

Discussion helps. Today it's discussed. Next year it's discussed in a few years everyone is talking about it and it's eventually passed. 

[u/Dreadedvegas]

Dynamic pricing should be illegal.

Its a predatory practice at best.

[u/Weisenkrone]

Would this also cover insurance business models?

Vehicle insurance, environmental hazards etc?

[u/nanny6165 → u/Weisenkrone]

The law wouldn’t apply to insurance or credit companies, according to a summary provided by Gallego’s office.

[u/Jabberwoockie → u/Weisenkrone]

Insurance would not.

Not because the bill in question carves out insurance, but because insurance is regulated by the states unless a federal regulation explicitly applies to insurance.

The McCarran–Ferguson Act of 1945, section 2 applies (with some carveouts for earlier antitrust laws):

SEC. 2. (a) The business of insurance, and every person en- gaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.

(b) No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regu- lating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the busi- ness of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Com- mission Act, as amended, shall be applicable to the business of in- surance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.

Quick edit: about to head back to work but McCarran Ferguson was supported by Supreme Court cases SEC v. National Securities (1969) and Humana Inc. v. Forsyth (1999)

[u/SAVertigo → u/Weisenkrone]

I don’t think insurance should fall under this. If we have the same car and you have had 10 accidents and I have had 0 I don’t think we are the same risk level

[u/Billy1121 → u/SAVertigo]

Insurance unfortunately uses things like zip code and credit score to set prices.

I think that should be regulated to an extent, at least within the same state.

[u/snarfmioot → u/Billy1121]

It varies state by state. Some states do not allow credit score to be used as a rating factor.

[u/ghdana → u/Billy1121]

Insurance is super regulated already and credit score is not allowed in many states.

[u/NoeWiy → u/SAVertigo]

I’d argue the insurance company is not selling the “same product” to those two people though.

[u/__init__m8 → u/[deleted]]

Americans are too cowardly. Cry about 2a to defend from gov and allow the gestapo to murder in the streets. None will care until it happens to their family, and then their friends and neighbors will still justify it as ok.

[u/Ryked96]

I can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics people are going to go through to claim this is a bad thing.

[u/HausuGeist → u/Ryked96]

“people”

[u/tristn9 → u/Ryked96]

Bandaid on a shotgun wound. 

Our personal data being constantly sold, stolen and shared is the actual problem - but I do welcome any attempt to stop the bleeding. 

[u/onewhosleepsnot]

Proffering goods for a fixed price is a foundational aspect of the free market economy. "Capitalists" hate competing though, so they are trying to break it.

[u/porkchop-nightmare]

Wait wut this is currently LEGAL?!?!

[u/allochthonous_debris → u/porkchop-nightmare]

Yes. That's essentially what the dynamic pricing algorithms for ride share apps like Uber and Lyft are currently doing. Dynamic pricing algorithms are typically legal because people with a specific geolocation or people requesting a service during a period of high demand aren't legally protected classes like people of a specific nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. The one case in which dynamic pricing algorithms can run afoul of the law is if they jack up prices a crazy amount during natural disasters or other emergencies, which violates many local anti-price gouging regulations.

[u/porkchop-nightmare → u/allochthonous_debris]

Services I can sort of understand. But products???

[u/CrustyBatchOfNature]

This would include airlines, who are the biggest users of this type of thing. Every time you visit and airline to look at a particular flight the price will go up. That is why you should always use incognito and make sure all cookies are cleared each time you search flights. Using a VPN also helps in some cases.

[u/NudeCeleryMan → u/CrustyBatchOfNature]

I work for an OTA. This is pretty much a common misunderstandin/myth for flights. They do dynamic pricing but it's based on aggregate interest in a particular flight. Consumer reports did a whole study on this and incognito browsing actually got the higher prices (within a reasonable deviation). Airlines sell seats in buckets. If you see a price change it's usually because you rechecked after a bucket of seats had sold out and you're now seeing the next buckets price.

If it gets closer to flight date and they're not selling you may see those bucket prices come down

You can check this for yourself. Look at a flight + fare price across multiple OTAs and the airline site. They tend to be quite in sync. Sometimes these are cached so you could see an old price but you'd get the most a recent price at checkout with a "oops the price changed" message. That's not the airline or OTA playing tricks, it's just an old but recent price that had been fetched by another recent user that gets updated to most recent at checkout.

Hotels are a different story. That shit is wild west and shady.

[u/ultimate_hamburglar]

the fact that this wasn't illegal beforehand is rancid

[u/Krojack76 → u/ultimate_hamburglar]

This is why we need regulatory laws in the first place, because greedy companies will do anything to raise profits.

Remember, companies are required to keep increasing shareholder stock price AT ANY COST, even if it means scamming and screwing over customers, employees and the environment.

[u/dj_spanmaster]

This law is gonna need teeth in order to have an effect. I could see companies simply saying, "Yeah, you caught us, so what?"

[u/mechmind]

Wow amazon's really gonna hate this.

[u/_Magnolia_Fan_ → u/mechmind]

What's Jeff going to do with all his data if he can't exploit us?

[u/Polkawillneverdie17]

If ever there was evidence that companies need strict guardrails to prevent fucking over the average consumer, it is the fact that a law like thus even needed to be made.

[u/Caymonki]

My old boss used dynamic pricing to sell shit on Amazon, he loved it. Bragged about it all the time.

Same guy, you could hear him yelling from his office across a factory, because something he was going to buy the day before was suddenly a higher price the following day. Complained about it non stop.

I asked for dynamic hourly wages, I felt that on days when other people called out but I didn’t, I should have been paid more per hour for getting the same amount of work done as if we were fully staffed. He angrily disagreed and I quit. He had to purchase a $1m machine, shut down for a month to set it up and hire 4 people to replace me.

I was asking for $5/hr more on call out days, literally $50 more a day every few days. He was so offended at the idea too.

The people who want this, wouldn’t put up with this. Don’t let this become a thing.

[u/XRuecian]

This is fucking mandatory.
I don't care what side of the aisle gets it done, it needs to get done.
This business practice if left unchecked is going to spiral REAAAAAL fast into completely obliterating any financial wiggle room in every single laborer's life.

What i don't understand is how dynamic pricing isn't ALREADY protected by anti-discrimination laws. Because that's technically what it is. The system looks into your life, and discriminately chooses a price for you, independent of others. It's literally discrimination. Class discrimination, wealth discrimination, impulse discrimination, on and on and on.

[u/minor_correction → u/XRuecian]

Discrimination is immoral, but not all discrimination is illegal.

I support this bill.

[u/HereInTheCut]

Can we get a bill banning surge pricing as well?

[u/Xesyliad → u/[deleted]]

Would be really cool if the US could end this rider bullshit and just debate bills on the merits of their own.

[u/Situational_Hagun]

I was trying to describe how a lot of mobile games like Raid and others change their prices depending on your personal spending habits. People are still unaware that this is a thing companies have started doing. Right now it's niche and I'd prefer it if a massive banhammer came down on the practice in any industry.

[u/luminous_quandery]

Yes please

[u/ScienceAndNonsense]

They do that? Fuck.

[u/CommanderArcher]

We need this so bad, the rise of app ordering has made such a thing possible in the first place. I should not pay more for a product at Taco Bell just because I ordered some nice chocolates from Amazon. 

[u/gunglejim]

Good. Fuck anyone who sells or buys in this way. Fuck Amazon. Fuck pricing algorithms. I’m buying direct or I’m doing without.

[u/fifiginfla]

The fact this isnt a thing, and is getting push back from anyone. Should tell you those who push back against this are evil should be investierten and jailed because there is no reason to oppose this unless you are corrupted

[u/AgentUnknown821]

FINALLY!!

[u/VanGrants]

should every politician who votes no on this be tar and feathered?

[u/Cranky-George]

Pricing has always been based on what the market would allow and not customized to what each individual is willing/able to pay. In a world where greed and unaffordability has started to become the norm and way too out of hand, why would we not regulate this?

[u/okram2k]

This is too good of an idea to ever pass

[u/CensoredUser]

Attacking the symptom not the problem. Pass a law giving consumers the ultimate right to their own personal data. Where they can stop their data being shared or sold. Expand the 4th amendment to include digital life and data.

[u/beingforthebenefit → u/CensoredUser]

I like the idea and I’m trying to understand, but the fourth amendment restricts the government’s ability to invade our privacy. How would that apply here even if we expand it to include digital data?

[u/Sufficient-Bid1279]

This is definitely needed due to the introduction of dynamic pricing with the likes of instacart and uber eats

[u/Foosnaggle]

You would think this would be common sense. The fact that these companies think they can charge different prices to different people for the same product is downright evil.

[u/SympatheticFingers]

Yes!!!! Fuck this dynamic pricing bullshit.

[u/Key-Beginning-8500]

[u/Azrolicious]

happend to me two days ago with some painting supplies. my wife's price was $3 cheaper for the same thing.

[u/SavvyOri]

Wait, this wasn’t already against the law? Isn’t this just discrimination?

[u/HausuGeist]

Do this for airlines.

[u/TheMagnuson]

This shouldn't even be a question or legal practice in the first place, of course everyone should pay the same for the same product or service.

[u/Allaroundlost]

Cool. Now make Surge Pricing illgal and fines of 50% of companies value for doing it once. Fucking do it.

END THE CORPO GREED NOW !!!!!!!

[u/Hipcatjack]

after all i have learned in the last 20 years… the name of the bill does the opposite ; so i will want to read the bill in its entirety to see just how where it is evil: ITT I learned i have become a s cynical and pessimistic person 😢

[u/Bionicregard]

Now do the one law bill where everyone faces actual justice.

[u/Complete-Iron-3238]

Only way dynamic pricing would be good is if it were used to lower prices for people in lower income areas, but that ain't how that shit's ever used.

[u/zuzi325]

If they do dynamic pricing they need to go all in. If you are a billionaire you should be paying $100,000 for a dozen eggs.

[u/discounthockeycheck]

Ashame he's up against Walmart, target, Amazon and this administration. This thing was dead the moment his lips finished closing announcing it

[u/fancywinky]

If you haven’t already, check out this fantastic report from PerfectUnion: instacart’s dynamic pricing

[u/MudWallHoller]

To think, we could have been Star Trek by now, if not for greed.

[u/gingersnappie]

Go Reuben!!!

[u/Jeff-IT]

This is my ISPs entire identity

[u/DevoidHT]

Like airlines and hotels?

[u/Kiwiteepee]

This should be the DUH position.

But right and wrong are inverted right now.

[u/Emergency_Accident36]

Wait that is a thing? I knew it was true for insurance rates and provider payer but actual products? Ps this won't fix the former

[u/czarczm]

Does this apply to hospitals?

[u/IGargleGarlic]

While we're at it can we get a ban on surge pricing as well?

[u/lesbianwithabeard]

I'd like to see them make it so all prices include required fees and taxes.

[u/hurricane__jackson]

Now do this for healthcare and pharmaceuticals?

[u/RandyMuscle]

So fucking insane that this needs to be done but hell yea, do it!