Fair Grocery Pricing Act

Bill Number

H.R. 1788

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Commerce

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-10-29T08:05:57Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Fair Grocery Pricing Act (H.R. 1788) aims to prevent food producers from using software or algorithms to coordinate and manipulate food prices or supply levels, thereby promoting fair competition in the food industry and protecting consumers from artificial price increases or shortages.

Key Provisions

• Definitions: The bill defines key terms, including "food producer" (any entity manufacturing, processing, or producing food for sale), "coordinator" (a person or entity providing software or analytics services that collect, analyze, or recommend pricing/supply data among producers), "consciously parallel pricing coordination" (tacit agreements among producers to align prices or supply for similar products), and "food" (as defined under federal food safety laws).
• Unlawful Conduct:
• It is illegal for food producers to contract with or use coordinators to facilitate non-competitive agreements on prices, supply, or other terms, treating such actions as automatic (per se) violations of the Sherman Act (a key antitrust law prohibiting trade restraints).
• Coordinators are prohibited from enabling such agreements, including by performing "coordinating functions" like data collection, analysis, or recommendations.
• Enforcement:
• The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ via the Attorney General), and state attorneys general can enforce the law using existing antitrust tools.
• Violations are also considered "unfair methods of competition" under FTC rules, allowing the FTC to sue for civil penalties.
• In lawsuits, plaintiffs face relaxed pleading standards: they only need to show plausible evidence of coordination (e.g., parallel pricing), without proving it couldn't be independent action.
• Civil Actions by Individuals:
• Anyone harmed (e.g., consumers or businesses) can sue in federal court for triple damages, litigation costs, attorney fees, and possibly interest.
• At the plaintiff's choice, pre-dispute arbitration agreements or waivers of class/joint actions related to violations are invalid, enabling group lawsuits.
• Other Clauses:
• The law supplements (but does not replace) existing federal antitrust laws like the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
• It does not override state, tribal, local, or territorial laws that add further protections.
• A severability clause ensures that if one part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest remains in effect.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Per Se Violations: Using algorithmic coordinators for pricing or supply coordination is explicitly deemed an automatic antitrust violation under the Sherman Act, bypassing the need to prove actual harm or intent in court (a stricter standard than current "rule of reason" analysis for some antitrust cases).
• Eased Proof Requirements: Lowers the bar for antitrust lawsuits by allowing claims based on plausible coordination evidence, removing the burden to disprove independent actions—making it easier to challenge alleged collusion.
• Private Rights and Remedies: Expands consumer and business ability to sue with enhanced damages and blocks forced arbitration or class-action waivers specifically for these violations, which is not standard in all antitrust cases.
• Targeted Focus on Algorithms: Introduces new prohibitions on tech-facilitated coordination in the food sector, an area not explicitly covered by prior laws, while integrating enforcement with existing FTC and DOJ authorities.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Empowers the FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general with broader tools to investigate and penalize algorithmic collusion in food markets, potentially increasing enforcement actions and resource demands on these bodies.
• On Citizens: Consumers could benefit from lower, more competitive food prices and stable supply by curbing artificial inflation; injured parties (e.g., buyers overcharged) gain easier access to remedies through lawsuits.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the law focuses on U.S. commerce; however, it could affect multinational food companies operating in the U.S. by imposing compliance requirements on global supply chains.
• Broader Economy: May deter tech-driven price-fixing in groceries, fostering competition but possibly raising compliance costs for legitimate data analytics in the industry.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Food Producers: Manufacturers, processors, and distributors of food products face restrictions on using shared algorithms or data services for pricing/supply decisions, with liability for violations.
• Coordinators/Tech Providers: Software companies or analytics firms offering pricing tools to multiple producers risk penalties for facilitating coordination.
• Consumers and Businesses: Grocery buyers, retailers, and other purchasers benefit from protections against collusion but may indirectly face higher costs if producers pass on compliance expenses.
• Government Entities: FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general gain enforcement roles; courts may see more antitrust cases related to food pricing.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens antitrust enforcement against modern tech tools like algorithms, potentially setting precedents for similar laws in other industries (e.g., tech or energy); the per se rule and relaxed pleading could lead to more successful challenges to parallel pricing behaviors.
• Constitutional: The severability clause protects the law's core from partial invalidation; private rights to sue and invalidate arbitration align with due process but may face challenges if seen as limiting contract freedoms under the Fifth Amendment.
• Political: Targets rising concerns over grocery inflation and corporate use of AI, appealing to consumer protection advocates; could spark debates on innovation vs. regulation in antitrust policy, especially amid broader scrutiny of big tech in concentrated markets like food production.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10]

Cosponsors (17)

Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14], Rep. Waters, Maxine [D-CA-43], Rep. Pocan, Mark [D-WI-2], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-03-03: Introduced in House
• 2025-03-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Fair Grocery Pricing Act — issued 2025-03-03 — PDF (8 pages)