PRIA Logo™
119-s-2321119th CongressWALLET

Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025

Sponsored By: Senator Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]

Introduced

Summary

This bill would create a federal rule to *prevent price gouging during exceptional market shocks* by banning sales at "grossly excessive" prices, adding SEC disclosure rules for affected public companies, and giving the FTC funding to enforce the law.

Show full summary
  • Families and everyday buyers would get stronger protections when markets face disasters or other shocks because sellers could not charge grossly excessive prices for goods or services during those periods.
  • Businesses that sell goods or services would face a new prohibition on grossly excessive pricing with rebuttable defenses, revenue-based penalty caps, and inflation-adjusted baselines.
  • Public companies would have to file detailed SEC disclosures after an exceptional market shock, including changes in volume, price, costs, margins, and a narrative explaining large price increases. The SEC must issue final rules within 180 days.
  • Regulators would gain expanded enforcement tools. The Federal Trade Commission would treat violations as unfair or deceptive acts and could seek injunctions, penalties, damages, and restitution. State attorneys general would also be able to bring enforcement actions and coordinate with the FTC.

*Provides $1.0 billion in Treasury funding to the FTC for FY2025 through 2033, increasing federal spending to support enforcement.*

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

4 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.

Stronger FTC enforcement and $1 billion

If enacted, price‑gouging violations would be treated as unfair or deceptive acts under the FTC Act. The FTC could sue in federal court for injunctions, civil penalties, restitution, and damages. State attorneys general could also sue, but generally must notify the FTC first and the FTC may limit duplicate state suits while a federal case is pending. Civil penalties would be set using the violator's ultimate parent's prior 12 months of revenue: 5% of that revenue if the seller has unfair leverage; otherwise the penalty would be the lesser of $25,000 or 5% of that revenue. The bill would also provide the FTC $1 billion for fiscal year 2025, available until September 30, 2033, to carry out enforcement work.

Ban on extreme prices during shocks

If enacted, the bill would make it illegal to sell goods or services at a "grossly excessive price." The FTC would have 180 days to write rules defining market prices and what counts as grossly excessive. The FTC is told to consider treating prices at or above 120% of the six‑month market average as grossly excessive. During an "exceptional market shock" (for example, disasters, energy failures, strikes, war, public health emergencies, or any Stafford Act disaster period) sellers with unfair leverage or using the shock as an excuse would be presumed to have broken the rule if their price is higher than their 120‑day pre‑shock average or competitors' prices. That presumption can be overcome only with clear and convincing evidence the increase was due to uncontrollable additional costs.

New SEC pricing disclosures after shocks

If enacted, public companies that had an "exceptional market shock" quarter would need to add tables and a narrative to their next 10‑Q or 10‑K filing. Required items include percent changes in volumes and average prices by category, gross margins by category, how much revenue change came from cost versus volume, dollar and percent changes in costs and revenue, and a detailed explanation of pricing decisions and rationale. The SEC must issue final rules or amendments within 180 days, and the disclosure requirement would start when the SEC finishes those rules.

New market-power test and small-business defense

If enacted, the bill would define who has "unfair leverage." One test is an ultimate parent with at least $1,000,000,000 in U.S. revenue in the prior 12 months (that threshold would be adjusted by CPI starting Jan 1, 2026). A presumption of dominance also exists if a seller has 40% or more market share or a buyer has 30% or more. At the same time, businesses whose ultimate parent earned less than $100,000,000 in U.S. revenue in the prior 12 months (CPI‑adjusted after Jan 1, 2026) could use an affirmative defense by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that price rises were due to uncontrollable additional costs.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]

MA • D

Cosponsors

  • Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

    WI • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

    CT • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

    PA • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ]

    NJ • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]

    MA • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

    OR • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

    VT • I

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

    MI • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

  • Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]

    RI • D

    Sponsored 7/17/2025

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation