Tennessee lawmakers are taking a swing at so-called surveillance-style price setting, backing a proposal that would bar companies from charging different shoppers different prices based on their personal data. House Bill 1468, filed this year by Nashville Rep. John Ray Clemmons, targets what it labels "personalized algorithmic pricing" and would treat violations as an unfair or deceptive trade practice under state law. If it clears the legislature, the ban would kick in on July 1, 2026. Supporters say the point is to shield shoppers, especially those already straining under rising costs, from secretive price experiments that single them out.
The bill defines "personalized algorithmic pricing" as dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that relies on personal data, and it casts a wide net around what counts as personal data. Under the text, that includes any information that identifies or could reasonably be linked to a specific consumer or device. There is a narrow exception for location information used only to calculate mileage and time fares for prearranged rides and other regulated for-hire vehicles. According to Capitol.tn.gov, a violation would be enforceable under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
Rep. Clemmons has been pitching the bill as a direct response to what he calls "surveillance pricing," warning that algorithms and machine learning can be deployed to figure out the "maximum amount you're willing to pay" and then quietly charge different customers different amounts. Local news coverage has featured residents calling the practice invasive and unfair. As reported by WSMV, Clemmons has tied the push to broader anxiety about affordability for Tennesseans.
Interest inside the legislature has been brisk. Tracking pages show dozens of House members from both parties signing on as sponsors or co-sponsors, and lawmakers have routed the bill to the Banking & Consumer Affairs Subcommittee for its first test. The proposal is cross-filed in the Senate as SB1807. Per LegiScan, backers span urban and rural districts, a sign that concern over automated price personalization is not limited to one part of the state.
Who The Law Would Leave Out
HB1468 does not attempt to rope in every sector that uses data and pricing tools. The text explicitly exempts entities that are already subject to Tennessee's insurance laws, financial institutions covered by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and certain banks and mortgage lenders. It also allows prices that flow from existing subscription contracts when the subscription rate is lower than the corresponding one-time price. And it carves out trip-based location data that is used solely to compute fares for prearranged rides and regulated for-hire vehicles. As outlined in the Senate companion, SB1807, on Capitol.tn.gov, those carveouts are framed as targeted and limited rather than sweeping industry-wide hall passes.
How This Fits A National Trend
Tennessee is stepping into a national debate where states are tinkering with very different tools to rein in algorithmic pricing. New York has opted for disclosure, requiring businesses that rely on personalized algorithmic pricing to post a blunt notice that reads, "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." California, by contrast, has focused on tightening antitrust exposure around shared pricing algorithms.
For readers who want to follow the footnotes, Justia hosts the New York statute, while Pillsbury Law breaks down California's reforms. Together, they show how some states are leaning on disclosure rules, others on antitrust law, and, in Tennessee's case, a more direct ban on personalized algorithmic pricing.
What's Next In Nashville
The real action now moves to a subcommittee hearing in early March, where lawmakers are expected to hear from retailers, consumer advocates, and legal and technical experts about how the bill would work in practice. Questions on the table include how to define key terms, how to enforce the rules, and whether the existing exemptions are too broad or not broad enough. Whether HB1468 advances to the House floor intact, is significantly amended, or stalls out will depend on what emerges from those negotiations. For up-to-date status reports and detailed sponsor lists, see LegiScan.
Supporters argue the measure would level the playing field for online and app-based shopping, giving an extra layer of protection to people who have no idea they are being slotted into higher or lower price buckets. Critics, though, warn that drawing the lines too broadly could interfere with more routine dynamic pricing strategies that businesses say help manage supply and demand. Nashville residents quoted in local coverage have not been shy about their discomfort, with some describing the idea of devices listening in and adjusting prices as "creepy," a gut reaction that has helped fuel interest in the bill, according to WSMV.
