Judge Dismisses Retail Group's Challenge To New York Surveillance Pricing Law (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0179731346
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/10/09/185236/judge-dismisses-retail-groups-challenge-to-new-york-surveillance-pricing-law
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/judge-dismisses-retailing-groups-challenge-new-york-surveillance-pricing-law-2025-10-08/
> U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said the world's largest retail trade group did not plausibly allege that New York's Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act violated its members' free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment.
>
> The first-in-the-nation law required retailers to disclose in capital letters when prices were set by algorithms using personal data, or face possible civil fines of $1,000 per violation. Governor Kathy Hochul said charging different prices depending on what people were willing to pay was "opaque," and prevented comparison-shopping.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/judge-dismisses-retailing-groups-challenge-new-york-surveillance-pricing-law-2025-10-08/
Meh (Score:2)
Just a different form of corruption. US retail is full of it, so what's one more.
Countries which actually have laws "FOR the people BY the people" for consumer protection are far more honest
I am happy I live in one.
I know....but.... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm fully aware that this is an unpopular opinion....but I don't have a problem with a retailer charging a customer what they're willing to pay, should that retailer actually be able to figure that out.
That said, my experience has been that retailers almost always charge me less than what I'm willing to pay, for whatever reason. Probably because they have no idea what I'm willing to pay.
All of that aside, I was under the impression that issues of "free speech" generally do NOT apply to "commercial" speech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even "Govt: we don't like personal data being used this way and want to put a stop to it." The law is simply that the customer must be made aware when personal data is used in this way. I'm perfectly OK with that, I for one would love to know when a business is trying to wring every nickel they can out of me by abusing my personal data. (hint: I'll walk out and buy from their competitor)
Messed up (Score:1)
It is messed up that people fought a law stating that you have to tell people when you are not treating everyone as equals.
Re: (Score:2)
Haggling and charging people what they're willing to pay is not illegal. It's just that you have to disclose that's what you're doing.
Why are scumbags shouting free speech so much? (Score:4, Informative)
Everytime so shmuck wants to break the law, they scream Free Speech!
Free Speech means you can say what you want to say. It does NOT mean you can do any business you want (Charging money is not free speech).
It does not mean you can refuse to let the government speak also, or refuse to 'assist' the government in speaking.
Free speech does not mean you can stop other people from speaking.
Free speech does not mean you can force your religion on other people.
I think that any spokesperson, lawyer, or asshole that has a court tell them free speech does not mean X should be required to go to a class on what free speech actually means.
Re: (Score:3)
I was basically going to come and say something like this. It's really obnoxious how first amendment rights are thoroughly misused/applied these days.
Re: (Score:2)
> or refuse to 'assist' the government in speaking.
Courts have often ruled that various forms of compelled speech violate 1A.
I think court got this one right though. There is a bright line here. The law requires disclosure of an activity the business is engaged it. It isnt requiring business to engage in anything speculative or discuss what any others are doing or may do, for example forcing you to disclose the existence of a competitor or that they might offer a lower price.