Skip to main content
NOPE
In Effect Law Consumer Protection

MD HB 895

Consumer Protection - Price Setting of Consumer Goods and Services and Use of Protected Class Data (Protection From Predatory Pricing Act)

First US state law to outright ban surveillance-based personalized pricing in food retail and third-party delivery, prohibiting use of protected class data and dynamic pricing tied to consumer personal data with limited exceptions for cost-based pricing, loyalty programs, and explicit consent.

Jurisdiction

Maryland

Enacted

Apr 28, 2026

Effective

Oct 1, 2026

Enforcement

Maryland Attorney General

Approved by Governor Wes Moore on April 28, 2026 (Chapter 154, 2026 Regular Session). Passed House 96-32 (March 21, 2026), passed Senate 41-1 (March 24, 2026), House concurred with Senate amendments 100-31 (April 11, 2026). In effect since October 1, 2026 (General Assembly bill page: "Effective Date(s): October 1, 2026").

Maryland General Assembly - HB 0895 Legislation Details

Why It Matters

Establishes the first US precedent for direct prohibition (rather than disclosure) of algorithmic surveillance pricing in a defined sector. Although limited to food retail and delivery, the structural model—targeting use of personal data and protected class data to set prices—is likely to be referenced in other algorithmic-fairness legislation across states and sectors.

Recent Developments

Signed by Governor Wes Moore on April 28, 2026 as Chapter 154, making Maryland the first state in the country to directly ban surveillance pricing practices for food retail rather than simply requiring disclosure (in contrast with the New York Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which mandates disclosure only).

At a Glance

Harms addressed

Discrimination

Who Must Comply

  • Food retailers operating in Maryland
  • Third-party delivery services facilitating food retail transactions in Maryland

Obligations fall on:

Safety Provisions

  • Prohibition on food retailers and third-party delivery services using protected class data to offer or price goods in a way that denies equal access
  • Prohibition on dynamic pricing based on consumer personal data
  • Permitted exceptions for cost-based pricing, supply/demand variation, error correction, and post-outage price resets
  • Permitted exception for loyalty programs and subscription-based pricing
  • Permitted exception for prices offered in exchange for explicit consumer consent to provide personal data

Exemptions

Loyalty Programs

Prices offered through loyalty programs are exempt

  • • Member of loyalty program

Subscription-Based Contracts

Subscription-based pricing arrangements are exempt

  • • Subscription-based contractual relationship

Cost-Based Pricing Variation

Pricing differences based on costs, supply, or demand are exempt

  • • Pricing variation tied to verifiable cost, supply, or demand factors

Consent-Based Pricing

Prices offered in exchange for explicit consumer consent to provide personal data

  • • Explicit, informed consumer consent

Compliance & Enforcement

Key Dates

Oct 1, 2026

Effective date; food retailers and third-party delivery services must comply with surveillance-pricing prohibitions

Penalties

Enforcement under Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Commercial Law § 13-321 et seq.). Civil penalties available; specific maximum amounts under existing CPA framework.

View on map

Maryland

Focus Areas

Algorithmic accountability

Cite This

APA

Maryland. (2026). Consumer Protection - Price Setting of Consumer Goods and Services and Use of Protected Class Data (Protection From Predatory Pricing Act).

Related Regulations

In Effect US-MD

MD AADC

Maryland design code modeled on UK approach: applies to covered online products reasonably likely to be accessed by minors. Pushes privacy-by-default, risk assessment, limits on "materially detrimental" data practices.

Failed US-MD

MD HB 952

Regulates companion chatbot operators with mandatory disclosures, harm detection, and crisis referral protocols for self-harm and suicidal ideation, backed by product liability and a private right of action.

Enacted US-CA

CA SB 503

Requires developers and deployers of AI clinical decision support systems used by health facilities, clinics and physician practices to make reasonable efforts to identify systems with a known or reasonably foreseeable risk of biased impacts on people with protected characteristics. Developers must mitigate those risks and give deployers an intended-use and risk statement plus documentation on training data, evaluation and data governance; deployers must regularly monitor the systems and mitigate.

In Effect US-HI

HI Deepfake Civil Remedy Act

Creates a civil cause of action allowing individuals to sue over realistic digital imitations (deepfakes) depicting them without consent, with statutory damages available.

In Effect US-NH

NH State AI Act

Regulates AI use by New Hampshire state agencies. Prohibits AI for unlawful discrimination, real-time biometric surveillance in public spaces (except law enforcement with warrant), and malicious deepfakes. Requires human oversight for irreversible AI decisions and mandatory AI disclosure to users.

In Effect US

FTC AI Actions

FTC applies Section 5 authority against unfair/deceptive AI practices, plus AI-specific rules including the Fake Reviews Rule (Oct 2024) prohibiting AI-generated fake reviews.

All regulations See what's likely relevant to your deployment

Last updated October 4, 2026. Verify against primary sources before relying on this information.