New York City Council 
Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection 
Int. 891 – Surveillance Pricing 

Thank you, Chair Epstein and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify on Int. 891 which would prohibit surveillance pricing. The Partnership for New York City mobilizes private sector resources and expertise to advance New York City’s standing as a global center of economic opportunity, upward mobility, and innovation. We are a nonprofit organization whose members are preeminent business leaders and companies that support nearly 1 million jobs in New York City and deliver approximately $370 billion in economic output. 

The Partnership strongly opposes Int. No. 891. We share the Council’s commitment to consumer protection and affordability for all New Yorkers. Int. 891, however, would have the opposite of its intended effect by eliminating the personalized discounts, loyalty rewards, and targeted offers that make goods and services more affordable for everyday New Yorkers. Even where consumer-friendly pricing programs would not be prohibited, companies would be discouraged from offering these programs due to the legal risk created by the bill. This would be especially problematic for small businesses. This bill is also unnecessary - the New York State Legislature has just passed the “One Fair Price Act” (S.8623-A/A.9349-B) regulating surveillance pricing. Enacting a conflicting city law would impose an untenable dual-compliance burden on businesses while ultimately harming the consumers the Council seeks to protect. 

Int. 891 Would Prohibit Pro-Consumer Pricing Practices 

The bill defines “surveillance pricing” as any price differentiation “based, in whole or in part, on personal data collected through surveillance technology.” The phrase “in whole or in part” means that a pricing decision touching any piece of consumer data triggers the prohibition. Meanwhile, “surveillance technology” is defined to include virtually any modern customer management or analytics platform (i.e., systems capable of gathering or inferring data from a consumer’s “behavior, characteristics, location, past purchases, or other attributes” in any physical or digital environment). 

Under these sweeping definitions, a wide variety of common, consumer-friendly practices the lower costs for customers would be prohibited. These include grocery “just for you” savings tailored to items a household regularly purchases; cart-abandonment price drops that help online shoppers complete a purchase at a lower price; “we miss you” win-back offers and discounted retention promotions for long-standing customers at risk of cancellation; birthday and purchase-anniversary promotions offered as a reward for customer loyalty; introductory pricing, renewal offers, and retention discounts; proactive lower-cost plan offers and financial relief programs extended to utility and telecom customers identified as being at risk of service disconnection; and disaster relief and emergency pricing support programs that rely on geographic and network analytics to identify affected customers. 

Int. 891’s Exceptions Are Too Narrow and Would Create Legal Uncertainty 

The first exception (§ 20-709.2(c)(1)) covers price differences “based solely on costs associated with providing the good or service to different consumers.” The word “solely” means that even where cost differences are the primary driver of pricing variation, if any other factor (e.g., customer service, retention, or competitive positioning) played a role, the exception is unavailable. This does not reflect how pricing actually works in any industry. 

The second exception is also too limited. Requirements for public disclosure in § 20-709.2(c)(2) and § 20-709.2(c)(2)(a) are burdensome and limit the applicability of the exception. In addition, many consumer-friendly discount programs are targeted and cannot meet the exception’s requirement to be “uniformly made available.” For example, proactive outreach to at-risk customers, personalized win-back offers, or individually tailored service recommendations would be prohibited by the bill. Furthermore, the exception in § 20-709.2(c)(2)(b) for particular groups is vague (due to the use of the term “such as” instead of “including but not limited to”), creating a heightened legal risk for any company offering discounts to particular groups. 

Int. 891’s Penalty Structure Creates Legal Risk Out of Proportion to the Harm 

The bill imposes civil penalties of $150, $300, and $1,000 per violation. For companies that set millions of individualized prices monthly, the potential aggregate liability would be astronomical and far out of proportion to any actual consumer harm. This structure creates a punitive enforcement environment that will drive businesses to eliminate data-informed pricing rather than risk noncompliance, even for programs that are clearly pro-consumer. 

Int. 891 Would Especially Harm Small Businesses 

Small and mid-size businesses in New York City rely on data-driven tools to connect with their customers. Tools like personalized promotions, loyalty rewards, and targeted discounts based on purchase history and preferences are the way these businesses build relationships, drive repeat visits, and stay relevant in a competitive market. 

Int. 891 would prohibit a neighborhood retailer from sending a repeat customer a personalized discount. A local restaurant offering a "we miss you" promotion to lapsed diners, or a small e-commerce business offering a cart-abandonment discount, would be in violation. These are not exploitative practices — they are how businesses maintain customer relationships and compete for attention. 

This bill would force businesses to abandon the personalization tools that drive customer engagement and replace them with one-size-fits-all pricing that treats every customer like a stranger. The result would be fewer relevant offers, weaker customer loyalty, and lost revenue for the local businesses that form the backbone of New York City's economy. 

Recently Passed State Legislation Makes Int. 891 Unnecessary 

The New York State Legislature recently passed the “One Fair Price Act” (S.8623-A/A.9349-B) regulating surveillance pricing. Int. 891 shares the same purpose but differs from the state bill in important ways (e.g., definitions, permissible discounts). Faced with conflicting requirements and the potential to be charged by both the city and the state for the same infraction, businesses operating in New York City would likely default to eliminating all data-informed pricing programs for New York customers rather than risk noncompliance with either regime. The result would be fewer discounts, less competition on price, and worse outcomes for consumers. 

Since Int. 891 would discourage companies from offering consumer-friendly discounts to New York City customers and the state has just passed legislation regulating surveillance pricing, we urge the Council not to take action on this bill. 

Thank you.