For two years, "surveillance pricing" has been a story about states. This week it grew in a new direction: cities. Seattle just put a city-level algorithmic-pricing law on the books, and New York City has one moving behind it. Meanwhile — on Election Day — New York State's own ban is still sitting on the Governor's desk, where it has quietly become a post-election decision.
The map changed shape twice this week: it gained a new layer (city), and the biggest state prize (New York) moved from "legislative" to "political."
🏙️ The new front — cities
Until now, if you tracked the five states, you had the map. That's no longer enough. Two cities just moved:
🟢 Seattle — enacted. The City Council passed the Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance on Sept 22; Mayor Katie Wilson signed it Oct 5, 2026. It prohibits "algorithmic-based price discrimination" and takes effect Sept 1, 2027.
🟡 New York City — pending. Int. No. 891-2026 would broadly prohibit surveillance pricing by sellers, lessors and renters — online or in person. It is under consideration, with industry pushback.
Why it matters: a multi-location retailer now has to check not just which state a store sits in, but which city. The patchwork didn't only widen — it gained a second layer, on its own clock and with its own enforcer.
🗽 New York — still on the desk, and now political
The One Fair Price Act (S8623-B / A9349-B) passed both chambers back in June. As of late October it still awaits action by Gov. Hochul — unsigned.
The timing is the story. Action wasn't expected before today's election; and if the Governor acts, she may "chapter" the bill — sign it with agreed-upon changes to follow in a later bill. So the version that becomes law may not be the version that passed.
What it would do, if signed:
• Replace New York's existing disclosure law with an outright ban on surveillance pricing.
• Enforcement: Attorney General only — an earlier private-right-of-action provision was removed before passage.
• Penalties: up to $5,000 (first violation) and $20,000 (each subsequent violation).
• Clock: effective 180 days after signature.
The nuance most trackers miss: New York already has a live pricing law. The Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (Gen. Bus. Law § 349-a) has required the label "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA" since Nov 10, 2025. The One Fair Price Act would strike that disclosure requirement and replace it with prohibition. So New York isn't moving from "nothing" to "a law" — it's moving from disclosure to ban.
⚖️ Federal — the FTC drew a line, then stepped back from it
On Aug 19, 2026 the FTC proposed an enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing. The comment period closed Sept 25; no final statement has issued. The FTC's stated position: it does not claim authority to ban personalized pricing outright — but a business that fails to tell consumers how their personal data sets their price may violate the FTC Act. Translation: at the federal level, the live exposure right now is disclosure, not prohibition.
📋 The Statelex Watchlist
🟢 Maryland — LIVE (Oct 1, 2026). HB 895. Large food retailers (stores ≥ 15,000 sq ft selling tax-exempt food) and third-party food delivery. AG Consumer Protection Division; 45-day cure notice; no private right of action.
🟢 California — AB 325 LIVE (effective Jan 1, 2026), antitrust / competitor-data (amends the Cartwright Act).
🟡 AB 2564 (the consumer-data "surveillance pricing" ban) stalled.
🟡 New Jersey — Fair Price Protection Act; signed Jul 23, 2026; main prohibition effective Aug 1, 2027. Runs through the Consumer Fraud Act (treble-damages exposure). New electronic-shelf-label moratorium from Feb 1, 2027.
🟡 Connecticut — P.A. 26-130; signed Jun 4, 2026; surveillance-pricing provisions effective Jul 1, 2027. Retail sellers + delivery services banned; other businesses must disclose.
🟡 New York — S8623-B passed; awaiting the Governor (AG-only; 180-day clock if signed). Disclosure law § 349-a live since Nov 10, 2025.
🟢 Seattle (city) — Signed Oct 5, 2026; effective Sept 1, 2027. ← NEW this week
🔴 Colorado — A surveillance-pricing ban was VETOED (Jun 2, 2026). Not every bill lands.
The takeaway this week
The question stopped being "which states have a pricing law." This week it became "which states — and which cities — on which clock, with which enforcer." Maryland is live and AG-enforced; New Jersey routes through private consumer-fraud suits; New York is one signature away from flipping disclosure into a ban; Seattle just opened a municipal front. Same subject, different machines. Track the layer, not just the state line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.