New Jersey Bans Surveillance Pricing After a Union Push

New Jersey shoppers can no longer be charged different prices for the same groceries based on their personal data, under a law Governor Mikie Sherrill signed last Thursday. The Fair Price Protection Act makes New Jersey the third state to outlaw so called surveillance pricing, after Maryland and Connecticut.

Buried in the same bill is something narrower and, for now, more consequential: a one year freeze on the electronic shelf labels retailers use to change prices in real time. That provision exists largely because a grocery workers’ union spent months building a national campaign against the technology, and it shows up in the law’s text well before most shoppers ever notice a personalized price.

Same Cart, Different Price, Now Illegal

The Fair Price Protection Act makes it a violation of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act to price groceries and other essential goods using a shopper’s personal data, including biometric, genetic or protected class information. The ban also reaches third party delivery platforms, closing off a loophole where an app, rather than the store itself, sets the price a shopper sees.

Violations can draw fines of up to $50,000. Sherrill’s office said the law also pauses new electronic shelf label rollouts for a year while the state studies the technology’s effects on shoppers and workers. Stores that already use the digital tags can keep using, repairing or replacing them.

The law carves out three specific practices that do not count as surveillance pricing:

• Promotional discounts off a store’s listed price, such as weekly sales
• Loyalty program benefits tied to a membership or rewards account
• Group based discounts for categories like teachers, veterans or senior citizens

“New Jersey families are already feeling the pressure of higher costs,” Sherrill said in a statement after signing the bill. “The last thing they need is companies secretly using their personal data to charge them more than someone else for the exact same product.” She added that businesses should compete “by offering better prices, not by finding new ways to squeeze shoppers.”

A Grocery Union’s Fingerprints on the Fine Print

The electronic shelf label freeze did not appear in the bill by accident. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) has spent the past year running an “Affordable Groceries and Good Jobs Campaign,” pushing state lawmakers to slow or ban the digital tags outright.

The union’s argument runs on two tracks. One is privacy: shelf labels networked to a pricing system can, in theory, change prices by the hour based on who is expected to walk down that aisle. The other is jobs, and it is the one that got New Jersey’s moratorium written into law.

The law’s moratorium on the use of electronic shelf labels is an important step to ensure this technology does not harm New Jersey shoppers or workers.

Ademola Oyefeso, vice president of the UFCW, said the New Jersey freeze should push other states to act. The union hopes the law becomes “a catalyst for states across the country” to block predatory pricing set by artificial intelligence “and protect good, union grocery jobs,” Oyefeso said.

The jobs argument has numbers behind it. In Minnesota, labor leaders have estimated that automating shelf pricing could put roughly 1,000 “family sustaining” union jobs at risk, mostly workers who currently handle manual price changes. A UFCW commissioned poll found 68 percent of Maryland voters back a ban on the tags, with 69 percent saying the technology would push grocery prices higher, not lower.

Why Do Grocers Say the Freeze Costs Them?

Retailers argue that pausing digital shelf tags delays a technology that already cuts food waste and paper costs in stores nationwide, and that the union’s jobs argument ignores the labor digital tags actually save on manual price changes. Industry groups have pushed back hard on the moratorium since it first appeared in Maryland’s bill earlier this year.

The Food Industry Association, a trade group representing grocers, says time triggered markdowns on perishable items cut food waste by up to 21 percent, since a digital tag can drop the price on a soon to expire item automatically rather than waiting for a worker to notice it. The group also argues the tags improve accuracy, since the shelf price and the register price come from the same system.

The global market for the tags was worth an estimated $1.85 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $7.54 billion by 2033. Walmart alone has committed to expanding the tags into 2,300 US stores, making it the highest profile adopter caught in the middle of the union campaign.

Where the two sides land:

• Labor unions say digital tags enable real time surveillance pricing and put manual pricing jobs at risk, citing Minnesota’s jobs estimate and the Maryland poll numbers
• Food retailers and trade groups say the same tags cut food waste, reduce paper and ink use, and free staff for customer service instead of manual price changes
• State lawmakers have so far sided with the unions on timing, pairing pricing bans with moratoriums rather than settling the dispute outright

The Federal Study That Started the Clock

None of this legislation happened in a vacuum. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened a formal inquiry into surveillance pricing in 2024, ordering several companies to turn over records on how they use consumer data to set individual prices.

The commission published its initial findings in January 2025. The study found intermediaries served at least 250 retail clients, spanning grocery chains, apparel sellers and health and beauty stores. Investigators found that signals as small as a shopper’s mouse movements or an item left in an abandoned cart could feed into pricing decisions, in one case showing a shopper profiled as a new parent a higher priced baby thermometer at the top of search results.

Algorithmic pricing pressure now shows up well outside the grocery aisle. In San Francisco, investor money has been pricing ordinary buyers out of the housing market, a separate example of data driven pricing squeezing consumers who have no way to see the algorithm working against them.

Four States, Four Different Deadlines

New Jersey’s law joins a small but fast growing list of state responses, each with its own scope, timeline and enforcement method.

Maryland’s law, which gives companies a 45 day window to fix violations before the attorney general can sue, has no private right of action. Connecticut’s approach leans on disclosure rather than an outright ban for every seller, requiring retailers to flag when a price was set using personal data.

New York’s situation is the most tangled. The state already requires algorithmic pricing disclosures under a law Hochul signed in 2025. The pending One Fair Price Act would scrap that disclosure only approach and ban the practice outright, the same path New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut have taken. The National Retail Federation has already sued New York over the existing disclosure law, a preview of the legal fights likely to follow any outright ban.

What Retailers Still Have to Untangle

National chains now face four different clocks, four different thresholds and, if New York acts, a fifth. A grocery chain operating in all four states would need separate compliance timelines for Maryland’s October deadline, New Jersey’s law already in force, Connecticut’s 2027 start date and whatever New York decides.

New Jersey and New York regulators have shown that appetite for policing pricing extends past groceries. The two states also sent subpoenas to FIFA over World Cup ticket pricing this year, widening their scrutiny of pricing algorithms well beyond the supermarket.

In Congress, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon is cosponsoring the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act, a federal bill that would ban both electronic shelf labels and personalized pricing nationwide. Lawmakers in New York, Oklahoma, Washington, Arizona, Nebraska, Maryland and Tennessee have introduced their own anti shelf label bills, on top of the laws already enacted.

Maryland’s law takes effect first, on October 1. New Jersey’s shelf label freeze runs out next summer, on July 23, 2027, the date the state has to decide whether the pause was worth the food waste the industry says it cost.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does New Jersey’s Ban Cover Online Grocery Delivery Apps?

Yes. The Fair Price Protection Act specifically bars third party delivery platforms from using a shopper’s personal data to charge different prices for the same item, closing a gap that would otherwise let an app rather than the store itself run a surveillance pricing scheme.

What Warning Would Shoppers See Under Connecticut’s Disclosure Rule?

Connecticut’s law requires an online seller to post a specific label reading that the price was increased by a price setting device using the shopper’s personal data, whenever an algorithm uses that data to raise a price. New Jersey took a different route, banning the practice instead of just disclosing it.

Is There a Federal Law Against Surveillance Pricing?

Not yet. The FTC’s study is investigatory, not a rule, and Congress has not passed Senator Merkley’s Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act. Until federal legislation moves, the practice remains legal in every state except Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey.

How Many States Have Now Moved Against Surveillance Pricing?

Three states, Maryland, Connecticut and New Jersey, have signed outright bans into law, and New York’s is awaiting the governor’s signature. Trackers following state legislation count roughly two dozen states with some form of algorithmic pricing bill introduced this year.

Do Grocery Loyalty Programs Still Count as Surveillance Pricing?

No. New Jersey’s law specifically exempts loyalty program discounts, along with promotional sales and group discounts for categories like veterans or seniors. The ban targets prices set from personal data a shopper never agreed to share, not discounts tied to a membership card.