New York sued by National Retail Federation over surveillance pricing law
The world's largest retail trade group said New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which would take effect on July 8, violates many members' First Amendment free speech rights.
Governor Kathy Hochul signed the first-in-the-nation law in May, saying the practice of charging different prices based on customers' willingness to pay was "opaque," and prevented those customers them from comparison-shopping.
In its complaint filed in Manhattan Federal Court, the National Retail Federation objected to requiring members to affix "misleading and ominous" warnings to prices set by algorithms linked to customer data.
It said the law reflected "speculative fear" of price gouging, even though retailers use algorithms to offer promotions and reward customer loyalty, sometimes resulting in lower prices.
According to the complaint, the law violates the U.S. Constitution by compelling a broad range of retailers to express misleading "government-scripted opinion" without justification, or face potential civil fines of $1,000 per violation.
The only defendant is State Attorney General Letitia James, who enforces New York laws. Her office did not immediately respond to requests for comment after business hours. Ms. Hochul's office did not immediately respond to a similar request.
In January, a divided Federal Trade Commission issued a study on surveillance pricing, saying location data and online browsing histories could permit retailers to "target" individual consumers with different prices for the same products.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, then a commissioner, dissented from issuing the study, saying it was rushed out three days before Donald Trump succeeded Joe Biden as U.S. President to meet a "nakedly political deadline."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Part of Maryland digital ad tax law declared unconstitutional
A federal appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a Maryland law prohibiting companies that pass on the costs of the state's first-of-its-kind digital advertising tax from telling customers why prices went up. Reversing a lower court ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with the Chamber of Commerce and two other trade groups that the restriction violated members' First Amendment free speech rights , while insulating Maryland lawmakers from criticism and political accountability. The offices of Maryland's Attorney General Anthony Brown and the only defendant, state Comptroller Brooke Lierman, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Aimed at larger businesses such as Meta Platforms' Facebook and Alphabet's Google, Maryland's 2021 law taxed companies that generated at least $1 million of gross revenue from digital ad services in the state. Maryland imposed levies on a sliding scale based on companies' global revenue, and lawmakers said the tax could raise $250 million annually. The Chamber of Commerce, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued, calling the law a punitive assault on digital rather than print advertising . Friday's decision concerned their objection to a provision against passing on the cost of the tax "by means of a separate fee, surcharge, or line-item," saying it effectively forbade businesses from shifting blame to lawmakers. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson wrote for a three-judge panel, however, that the provision ensured that companies would bear economic and legal responsibility for the tax. He said Maryland didn't justify this, and the provision was facially unconstitutional. "The pass-through prevents companies from describing the tax in the one setting where the consumer is guaranteed to look: the invoice," the judge wrote. "Keeping out of hot water with voters is not among the interests that can justify a speech ban." Richardson added: "As much today as 250 years ago, criticizing the government - for taxes or anything else - is important discourse in a democratic society. The First Amendment forbids Maryland to suppress it." The Richmond, Virginia appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby in Greenbelt, Maryland, to determine appropriate remedies. In separate statements, the trade groups welcomed the decision. "The Fourth Circuit was absolutely correct," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship." The case is Chamber of Commerce et al v. Lierman, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1727.
Economic Times
17 hours ago
- Economic Times
Mississippi social media law: Age verification and parental consent now mandatory on Facebook, Instagram, X
Mississippi's new social media law now requires sites like Facebook, Instagram, and X to verify children's ages and get parental consent. NetChoice, a group of big tech companies, tried to stop it, saying it may limit online free speech. The Supreme Court denied their request, so the law is now active to protect children from harmful content online. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is NetChoice—the challengers to the law What does the law say Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs A Mississippi law, making it mandatory for social media sites like Facebook, X, and Instagram to age verify children and take parental consent before allowing use, has come into effect for all its possible purposes after the Supreme Court denied relief to the trade group seeking to block its enforcement, reports group of big tech companies—Dreamwidth, Meta, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit, Snap Inc. (which owns Snapchat), X and YouTube—were all represented by a trade group called NetChoice, which had gotten a federal judge to block the law's implementation previously, as per the report by US Court of Appeal then lifted the injunction. Which led NetChoice to seek emergency relief for its clients, stating that 'both minors and adults can access and engage in fully protected expression online, free from governmental interference.'The law, called the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act asked sites to formulate and implement methods to subvert exposure of harmful content to minors—citing an incident where a 16—year-old committed suicide after falling prey to a bogus sextortion attempt on State of Mississippi, represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch, however, was of the firm view that the inunction on the law was uncalled for and hampered state's ability to protect children from predators, MSNBC reported. She also cited a Texan ruling where verification of sexual content before exposing it to children became mandatory, as reported by the Shadow bench of the High Court—which had its doubts over the constitutional validity of the law—had upheld the law, it didn't give specific comments on the First Amendment violation claims raised by Brett Kavanaugh of the 5th circuit said that the law was possibly unconstitutional but as of now, NetChoice has failed to 'sufficiently demonstrate that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time', as reported by law requires sites like Facebook, Instagram, and X to check children's ages and get parental consent before allowing them to use the is a group representing big tech companies that tried to block the law, saying it limits free online expression for minors and adults.
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
Mississippi social media law: Age verification and parental consent now mandatory on Facebook, Instagram, X
A Mississippi law, making it mandatory for social media sites like Facebook, X, and Instagram to age verify children and take parental consent before allowing use, has come into effect for all its possible purposes after the Supreme Court denied relief to the trade group seeking to block its enforcement, reports said. What is NetChoice—the challengers to the law The group of big tech companies—Dreamwidth, Meta, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit, Snap Inc. (which owns Snapchat), X and YouTube—were all represented by a trade group called NetChoice, which had gotten a federal judge to block the law's implementation previously, as per the report by MSNBC. The US Court of Appeal then lifted the injunction. Which led NetChoice to seek emergency relief for its clients, stating that 'both minors and adults can access and engage in fully protected expression online, free from governmental interference.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo ALSO READ: New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell indicted for fraud and bodyguard scandal What does the law say The law, called the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act asked sites to formulate and implement methods to subvert exposure of harmful content to minors—citing an incident where a 16—year-old committed suicide after falling prey to a bogus sextortion attempt on Instagram. Live Events The State of Mississippi, represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch, however, was of the firm view that the inunction on the law was uncalled for and hampered state's ability to protect children from predators, MSNBC reported. She also cited a Texan ruling where verification of sexual content before exposing it to children became mandatory, as reported by MSNBC. Though the Shadow bench of the High Court—which had its doubts over the constitutional validity of the law—had upheld the law, it didn't give specific comments on the First Amendment violation claims raised by NetChoice. Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the 5th circuit said that the law was possibly unconstitutional but as of now, NetChoice has failed to 'sufficiently demonstrate that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time', as reported by MSNBC. FAQs Q1. What is the Mississippi social media law about? The law requires sites like Facebook, Instagram, and X to check children's ages and get parental consent before allowing them to use the platforms. Q2. Who is NetChoice and why did they challenge the law? NetChoice is a group representing big tech companies that tried to block the law, saying it limits free online expression for minors and adults.
