Gov. Mikie Sherrill last month signed the Fair Price Protection Act, making the Garden State the third — after Maryland and Connecticut — to restrict “surveillance pricing,” i.e., the practice of using a consumer’s personal data to tailor or adjust the price of goods.
The law, which takes effect Feb. 1, prohibits sellers of food and grocery products from altering prices based on an individual’s purchasing history, online activity, location data, or other personal information.
Unlike similar statutes in other states, the New Jersey law creates a private right of action under the Consumer Fraud Act, exposes violators to civil penalties of up to $10,000 for a first offense and $20,000 thereafter (plus potential treble damages), and imposes a first-of-its-kind one-year moratorium on the installation of new electronic shelf labels.
For retailers, e-commerce platforms, grocery chains, delivery services, and technology providers operating in New Jersey, the message is clear: now is the time to evaluate how consumer data informs your pricing decisions and to take concrete steps to prepare for compliance.
Carly Rothstein, an Associate Attorney in the Antitrust and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice groups at Mandelbaum Barrett PC in Roseland, offers practical considerations for New Jersey businesses ahead of the law’s Feb. 1, 2027, effective date.
Review your pricing practices.
Companies should map how personal data currently flows into pricing decisions—whether through algorithms, A/B testing, personalized offers, or dynamic pricing engines, Rothstein said.
If any consumer-facing price is being set or adjusted based on who the buyer is rather than what the product is, that practice likely falls within the Act’s scope. An internal audit now can help identify and remediate risk areas well ahead of the February 2027 effective date.
Evaluate your data collection, retention, and use practices.
Even where consumer data is used in connection with pricing in ways the Act permits—such as administering loyalty programs or applying publicly disclosed discounts—businesses must still ensure those practices are clearly described in privacy policies, terms of service, or point-of-sale notices and are legally supportable under existing data privacy laws, Rothstein said.
Disclosure alone does not create a safe harbor for practices that would otherwise violate the Act’s core prohibition on individualized, data-driven pricing; rather, it is a necessary additional layer of compliance for uses that already fall within a statutory exception.
Where consumer data is retained for analytics purposes, companies should also assess whether their retention schedules and access controls align with the heightened expectations set by the legislation.
Assess plans involving electronic shelf labels.
New Jersey’s one-year moratorium on installing new electronic shelf labels is the first of its kind nationally.
Companies that had planned to roll out or expand ESL technology in New Jersey stores should pause those efforts and monitor the New Jersey Innovation Authority’s study of the technology’s impact on pricing practices, Rothstein said.
Existing labels may still be used, maintained, and replaced during the moratorium, but new installations are off the table until the review is complete.
Review loyalty programs and promotional discount structures.
The Act carves out traditional discounts, promotions, and opt-in loyalty programs—provided all participants can access discounts under the same conditions and eligibility criteria are publicly disclosed.
Businesses should audit their current programs to confirm they fit squarely within these exceptions rather than inadvertently functioning as vehicles for individualized, data-driven pricing, Rothstein said.
Monitor legislative developments in other jurisdictions.
The regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly. New York has a comprehensive surveillance pricing bill awaiting the governor’s signature, and several other states have introduced similar measures.
Businesses that operate across multiple states face a growing patchwork of compliance obligations, and the differences among existing laws—such as Connecticut’s transparency-focused approach and Maryland’s 45-day cure period—underscore the importance of building flexible, jurisdiction-aware compliance programs rather than one-size-fits-all solutions, Rothstein said.
