If you’ve been tracking California’s “surveillance pricing” bill and waiting for it to land, here’s the twist: the bill you were watching stalled — and a different California pricing law has quietly been in force since early 2026. Most retailers are watching the wrong California statute.
⚖️ Two different weapons — and California just showed the gap
Back in Dispatch No.4 we split the two legal problems hiding under one word, “pricing”:
Competitor data → antitrust. Using a shared algorithm to align prices with competitors.
Consumer data → consumer protection. Using a shopper’s personal data to set their individual price — the “surveillance pricing” everyone talks about.
California is now the clearest proof that these two move at different speeds.
🟢 The one that’s already law — AB 325 (in force since early 2026)
AB 325 amends California’s antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act. Signed in October 2025, it:
makes algorithmic price collusion between competitors unlawful, and
goes further: it’s illegal to coerce another business into setting prices off a shared algorithm’s recommendations when that algorithm runs on competitor data (public or non-public).
What it doesn’t touch: a business using its own proprietary pricing software for its own prices. This targets the shared-vendor / common-algorithm scenario — the competitor-data side.
The part most people missed: California already has an enforceable algorithmic-pricing law. It’s just the antitrust kind, not the surveillance kind.
🟡 The one everyone watched — AB 2564 (stalled)
AB 2564 was the consumer-data bill — it would have banned using a shopper’s personal data to set an individualized price. It passed the California Senate in late August 2026, then ran out of road before the session closed, never completing the final steps to reach the Governor. For now it’s stalled, not law.
So if your compliance map lists “California — surveillance pricing” as pending, flip it: the surveillance-pricing ban is on hold, while the antitrust-algorithm law is live.
🗽 Meanwhile in New York — still on the desk
New York’s One Fair Price Act (the consumer-data ban) passed both chambers in June and remains on Governor Hochul’s desk. She has until year-end to act; as of this week, no signature. It’s the one that could move a major market overnight — worth a weekly glance, because a single signature starts a 180-day clock.
📋 The Statelex Watchlist
Maryland — 🟢 LIVE (Oct 1, 2026). Consumer-data ban; AG-only; loyalty exempt, conditionally.
California — 🟢 AB 325 LIVE (since early 2026), antitrust / competitor-data · 🟡 AB 2564 (consumer-data ban) stalled.
New Jersey — 🔴 Enacted; effective Aug 1, 2027. First consumer right to sue.
Connecticut — 🔴 Enacted; effective Jul 1, 2027. Broadest scope.
New York — 🟡 Passed; awaiting the Governor’s signature.
The takeaway this week
“Is there a pricing law in California yet?” is the wrong question. There are two tracks — competitor-data and consumer-data — and they don’t arrive together. In California the antitrust track already landed (AB 325) while the surveillance track stalled (AB 2564). Check which track a state is actually on before you decide you’re in the clear.
Statelex is an information service, not legal advice. This dispatch summarizes public legislative and regulatory text; it does not evaluate whether your specific pricing practices comply with any law. Confirm any action with your legal or compliance team.