Price gouging is a pejorative term for the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair by some. This commonly applies to price increases of basic necessities after natural disasters. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. The term can also be used to refer to profits obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits. In some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies, price gouging is a specific crime. Price gouging is considered by some to be exploitative and unethical and by others to be a simple result of supply and demand.
Price gouging is similar to profiteering but can be distinguished by being short-term and localized and by being restricted to essentials such as food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and equipment needed to preserve life and property. In jurisdictions where there is no such crime, the term may still be used to pressure firms to refrain from such behavior. The term is used directly in laws and regulations in the United States and Canada, [1] but legislation exists internationally with similar regulatory purpose under existing competition laws.
It is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly that prices above the market rate by deliberately curtailing production. [2] Alternatively, it may refer to suppliers' benefiting to excess from a short-term change in the demand curve.
Price gouging became highly prevalent in news media in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, when state price gouging regulations went into effect due to the national emergency. The rise in public discourse was associated with increased shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The resulting inflation after the pandemic has also been blamed, at least in part, by some on price gouging. During the pandemic, the idea of 'greedflation' or 'seller's inflation' also moved out of the progressive economics fringe by 2023 to be embraced by some mainstream economists, policymakers and business press. [3]
As of March 2021, Proskauer Rose counted 42 states that have emergency regulations or price-gouging statutes. [4] [ needs update ] Price-gouging is often defined in terms of the three criteria listed below: [5]
Washington state does not have a specific statute addressing price gouging, can nevertheless have sought to apply its consumer protection act to argue that high prices during COVID-19 for PPE was an "unfair" or "deceptive" practice. [6]
This section possibly contains original research .(August 2024) |
Statutory prohibitions on price gouging become effective once a state of emergency has been declared. States have legislated different requirements for who must declare a state of emergency for the law to go into effect. Some state statutes that prohibit price gouging—including those of Alabama, [7] Florida, [8] Mississippi, [9] and Ohio [10] —prohibit price increases only once the President of the United States or the state's governor has declared a state of emergency in the impacted region. California permits emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger the state's price gouging law. [11]
State laws vary on what price increases are permitted during a declared disaster. California has set a 10 percent ceiling on price increases. [12] The law includes exceptions for price increases that can be justified in terms of the increased cost of supply, transportation, demand, or storage. [13] Florida prohibits a price increase "that grossly exceeds the average price" of that same item in the 30 days leading up to the emergency declaration. [14] Alabama state law does not define what constitutes a "gross disparity," making it difficult for either affected residents or law enforcement to determine when price gouging has occurred, while others merely limit vendors and landlords to price increases of less than 25 percent. [15]
Enforcement of anti-price gouging statutes can be difficult because of the exceptions often contained within the statutes and the lack of oversight mechanisms. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute. In 2004, Florida determined that one-third of complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder was handled by consent decrees, rather than prosecution.[ citation needed ]
California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging, generally defined as anything greater than a 10 percent increase in price on items such as rent, hotel lodging, gasoline, food, and other essentials, once a state of emergency has been declared. [16] [11] Unlike other states that require the President of the United States or the state's governor to declare a state of emergency, California allows emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger C.P.C. § 396. [17] The prohibition lasts for up to 30 days at a time and may be renewed as necessary. [12]
In the wake of the 2017 California wildfires and the 2018 California wildfires, Governor Jerry Brown repeatedly extended the price-gouging ban for impacted counties. [16] One of his last acts as governor was to extend the prohibitions until May 31, 2019. [18]
Until 2018, the state had no limitations on the rent that could be charged for housing that was not on the market until after a disaster. [19] Due to complaints from the district attorney that she couldn't prosecute high priced new rentals which came on the market after the Tubbs Fire, the legislature amended C.P.C. § 396. [19]
The above 2018 price gouging law makes it illegal to offer a previously unrented property for more than about $10,000 per month during an emergency. [19] In the wake of the January 2025 Palisades Fire, this price cap has made it harder for displaced people to find housing, because many comparable properties normally rent for more than this, and this rent cap discourages owners of high-end vacation homes from making their homes available for rent. [19] One expert estimated that hundreds to thousands more homes might be available for rent if this rent cap did not exist. [19]
Florida's "state of emergency" law criminalizes price gouging. [20] A supplier of essential goods and services may be charged when it sharply raises prices in anticipation of or during a civil emergency or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. Though the effect of such laws have been proven to actually increase the risk of extreme shortages since the absence of increased prices replaces higher prices with an incentive for the earliest person to market to obtain all of a product about to imminently experience a period of very high demand. [21]
In Florida, it is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as running an emergency generator or hazard pay for workers, while California places a ten percent cap on any increases. [22]
Laws and regulations in the United Kingdom do not use the phrase "price gouging" in consumer protection regulation but are similar to U.S. laws.[ citation needed ] Chapter II of the UK Competition Act 1998 prohibits businesses with market dominance from engaging in "abusive" conduct, including "unfair" pricing. [23] Market dominance is considered when a business has greater than 40% of the market share within their respective industry. In the case of a violation of Chapter II, a business can be forced to pay up to 10% of global revenues. [24]
Similar to UK regulations, the EU does not include "price gouging" explicitly in regulation.[ citation needed ] Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is "aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position." As stated, "such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions..." In 2016, the EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager stated that the EU Commission will "intervene directly to correct excessively high prices" specifically within the gas industry, pharmaceutical industry and in cases of abuse of standard-essential patents. [25] [ better source needed ]
On March 13, 2020, a national emergency was declared in the United States by President Trump in response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic; the declaration allowed for an initial $50 billion to be used to support states. [26] As studied by the National Institutes of Health, the COVID-19 pandemic induced a panic as mandates were put in place for Americans to stay at home, quarantine, and wear masks. [27] The declared COVID-19 emergency made state-level price gouging laws and regulations go into effect. Demand for certain products increased while supply decreased. Such products in short supply included surgical masks, N95 respirators, hand sanitizer, and toilet paper. More than 30 states' attorneys general urged Facebook, Amazon, Craigslist, eBay, and Walmart to restrict the selling of necessary products at "unconscionable" prices. [28]
A 2018 appeals court overturned a lower court ruling, arguing that the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. constitution meant Maryland's anti-price gouging statute was unconstitutional. [29]
This complaint relates to online merchants selling necessary products on Amazon during the US national state of emergency invoked in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Online Merchants Guild, a trade association for online merchants, filed a case in Kentucky on the basis that state regulations against price gouging are unconstitutional in the online marketplace since online merchants are unable to control pricing by state. [30] Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove sided with the Online Merchants Guild on June 23, 2020, saying that the Kentucky Attorney General cannot enforce the price gouging regulations on Amazon sellers. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned that ruling in April of 2021. [31]
In response to the issuance of emergency price gouging regulations, multiple state attorneys general and federal agencies have investigated potential cases of price gouging impacting consumers and agencies. Since regulatory measures vary by state, there is no uniform interpretation of price gouging violations, and it is left to state courts to decide.
On August 11, 2020, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Hillandale Farms, one of the largest U.S. egg producers, for allegedly price gouging more than four million cartons of eggs by increasing prices by almost five times during the pandemic. The lawsuit alleges that the price increases were an effort to profit off of higher consumer demand during the pandemic. [32] To settle the lawsuit, Hillandale Farms agreed to donate 1.2 million eggs to New York food banks. [33]
A Mississippi businessman purchased scarce personal protective equipment (PPE) including gowns, face shields, and masks through his pharmaceutical wholesale company. An indictment alleges that the business then solicited health care providers, including the U.S. Veteran's Association, to purchase the PPE at excessively inflated prices as part of a $1.8 million scheme. This case was investigated by the FBI, Veteran's Association, and Fraud Section of the United States Department of Justice. The charges brought were conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit hoarding of designated scarce materials, and hoarding of designated scarce materials. [34] [35] [ needs update ]
Allocative efficiency holds that when prices function properly, markets tend to allocate resources to their most valued uses. In turn, those who value the good the most and are able to afford it will pay a higher price than those who do not value the good as much or who are unable to afford it. [5] According to Friedrich Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (1945), prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people as they seek to satisfy their desires. [36]
Economists such as Thomas Sowell (Chicago School of economics) in 2004, [37] Donald J. Boudreaux in 2005, [38] and Raymond Niles (Senior Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research) in 2020 argue that laws prohibiting price gouging worsen emergencies for both buyers and sellers. [39]
In a 2012 survey of leading[ non-primary source needed ] American economists by the Initiative on Global Markets, only 8 percent agreed with a proposal in Connecticut to prohibit "unconscionably excessive" price increases during severe weather events. Those who disagreed stated that the wording was vague or unenforceable, and that restricting price increases leads to misallocation of resources. [40] [ non-primary source needed ]
In 2022, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis economist Christopher J. Neely said that "most economists believe broad price controls to be costly and ineffective in most situations" because high prices function to "allocate scarce goods and services to buyers who are most willing and able to pay for them, [and] they signal that a good is valued and that producers can profit by increasing the quantity supplied." [41]
A 2022 Working Paper by the International Monetary Fund explores the implementation of windfall profit taxes, which have gained renewed interest following the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and subsequent surges in energy and food prices. The paper discusses the potential of such taxes as a tool for efficiently taxing economic rents, which are often a result of monopolistic power or unexpected events like pandemics, war, or natural disasters, and contribute to windfall profits. Such profits have raised public and policy concerns about price gouging, where firms are perceived to be profiting excessively from unforeseen circumstances. [42]
In Australia in 2023 and 2024, major supermarket chains Coles and Woolworths received criticism as price gouging, especially in less competitive markets. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Coles and Woolworths control 65% of Australia's grocery market. [48]
In March 2024, the Federal Trade Commission accused grocery chains in the U.S. of price gouging. [49] The Commission also sued to block the proposed acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger citing the need for more competition to keep prices down. [50]
A study from 2024 [51] showed that oftentimes when allegations of "price gouging" are made, the profit margins of sellers and vendors is substantially lower than critics believe, such as in the case of grocers recently accused of "price gouging" who actually had a 1.2% profit margin after expenses; with Kroger having their highest profits in the previous 15 years occurring in 2018 at 3%. [52]
Price fixing is an anticompetitive agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.
A state of emergency is a situation in which a government is empowered to put through policies that it would normally not be permitted to do, for the safety and protection of its citizens. A government can declare such a state before, during, or after a natural disaster, civil unrest, armed conflict, medical pandemic or epidemic or other biosecurity risk.
In the United States, rent control refers to laws or ordinances that set price controls on the rent of residential housing to function as a price ceiling. More loosely, "rent control" describes several types of price control:
Real estate agents and real estate brokers are people who represent sellers or buyers of real estate or real property. While a broker may work independently, an agent usually works under a licensed broker to represent clients. Brokers and agents are licensed by the state to negotiate sales agreements and manage the documentation required for closing real estate transactions.
An excess profits tax, EPT, is a tax on returns or profits which exceed risk-adjusted normal returns. The concept of excess profit is very similar to that of economic rent. Excess profit taxes are usually imposed on monopolist industries.
Affordable housing is housing which is deemed affordable to those with a household income at or below the median, as rated by the national government or a local government by a recognized housing affordability index. Most of the literature on affordable housing refers to mortgages and a number of forms that exist along a continuum – from emergency homeless shelters, to transitional housing, to non-market rental, to formal and informal rental, indigenous housing, and ending with affordable home ownership. Demand for affordable housing is generally associated with a decrease in housing affordability, such as rent increases, in addition to increased homelessness.
A windfall tax is a higher tax rate on profits that ensue from a sudden windfall gain to a particular company or industry.
W. W. Grainger, Inc., is an American Fortune 500 industrial supply company founded in 1927 in Chicago by William W. (Bill) Grainger. He founded the company to provide consumers with access to a consistent supply of motors. The company now serves more than 4.5 million customers worldwide with offerings such as motors, lighting, material handling, fasteners, plumbing, tools, and safety supplies, along with inventory management services and technical support. Revenue is generally from business-to-business sales rather than retail sales. Grainger serves its customers through a network of approximately 331 branches, online channels, and 34 distribution facilities.
The tax system of the Russian Federation is a complex of relationships between fiscal authorities and taxpayers in the field of all existing taxes and fees. It implies continuous communication of all its members and related objects: payers; legislative framework; oversight authorities; types of mandatory payments. The Russian Tax Code is the primary tax law for the Russian Federation. The Code was created, adopted and implemented in three stages.
A real estate trend is any consistent pattern or change in the general direction of the real estate industry which, over the course of time, causes a statistically noticeable change. This phenomenon can be a result of the economy, a change in mortgage rates, consumer speculations, or other fundamental and non-fundamental reasons.
Rent regulation in New York is a means of limiting the amount of rent charged on dwellings. Rent control and rent stabilization are two programs used in parts of New York state. In addition to controlling rent, the system also prescribes rights and obligations for tenants and landlords.
Consumer protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services, and the public, against unfair practices in the marketplace. Consumer protection measures are often established by law. Such laws are intended to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or specified unfair practices to gain an advantage over competitors or to mislead consumers. They may also provide additional protection for the general public which may be impacted by a product even when they are not the direct purchaser or consumer of that product. For example, government regulations may require businesses to disclose detailed information about their products—particularly in areas where public health or safety is an issue, such as with food or automobiles.
Rent regulation is a system of laws for the rental market of dwellings, with controversial effects on affordability of housing and tenancies. Generally, a system of rent regulation involves:
The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act ("Costa–Hawkins") is a California state law enacted in 1995, placing limits on municipal rent control ordinances. Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways. First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain kinds of residential units, such as single-family dwellings, condominiums, and newly constructed apartment units. Second, it prohibits "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control. The legislation was sponsored by Democratic Senator Jim Costa and Republican assembly member Phil Hawkins.
Dean E. Preston is an American attorney and former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In November 2019, Preston won a special election to finish Mayor London Breed's term on the Board of Supervisors. He was re-elected in 2020 but was defeated in 2024 by Bilal Mahmood
The Health Act 2020 was an Act of the Oireachtas which provided for additional powers for the state in the extraordinary circumstances of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Columbus, the capital city of Ohio, has a history of social services to provide for low- and no-income residents. The city has many neighborhoods below the poverty line, and has experienced a rise in homelessness in recent decades. Social services include cash- and housing-related assistance, case management, treatment for mental health and substance abuse, and legal and budget/credit assistance.
The government of Texas's initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the state consisted of a decentralized system that was mostly reliant on local policies. As the pandemic progressed in Texas and throughout the rest of the country, the Texas government closed down several businesses and parks, and it eventually imposed a statewide stay-at-home order in late May. Then, between May and June 2020, the state government initiated a phased reopening, which was viewed as controversial. The reopening was phased back in June and July 2020 following a new surge of COVID-19 cases in the state. In March 2021, as COVID-19 vaccines began to be administered throughout the U.S., the Texas government reopened the state again.
Following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a worldwide surge in inflation began in mid-2021 and lasted until mid-2022. Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades. It has been attributed to various causes, including pandemic-related economic dislocation, supply chain disruptions, the fiscal and monetary stimulus provided in 2020 and 2021 by governments and central banks around the world in response to the pandemic, and price gouging. Preexisting factors that may have contributed to the surge included housing shortages, climate impacts, and government budget deficits have also been cited as factors. Recovery in demand from the COVID-19 recession had, by 2021, revealed significant supply shortages across many business and consumer economic sectors.
The term Greedflation first appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic to describe the idea that some inflation is driven by increases in corporate profits. Suggested mechanisms include price gouging, price fixing, windfall gains resulting from information asymmetry, monopoly-like power, and external shocks to the economy. The theory, which first gained traction among left-wing pundits and trade unions, was considered fringe until 2023.
As such, Microsoft fails to meet the traditional standards of a coercive monopoly, i.e., one that price-gouges consumers by deliberately curtailing production. If there was a reason to justify trust-busting a hundred years ago under the Sherman anti-trust act, this was it.
It caps annual rent increases at 10 percent along with some additional tenant protections. The cap also applies to hotel rooms, food, fuel, medicine and other essential supplies during a declared emergency.
...Shane Phillips, manager of the Randall Lewis Housing Initiative at the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies. He estimated that potential landlords could be holding back "in the high hundreds to the low thousands" of homes due to the price limitations on new listings. That amount is too small to affect L.A.'s overall rental market but does make it harder for displaced people to find houses, he said. "Every home does count," Phillips said. "It does matter. And no matter how fancy it is, someone from the Palisades can afford it."