Price gouging

Last updated

1904 cartoon warning attendees of the St. Louis World's Fair of hotel room price gouging Cartoon warning World's Fair attendees of price-gouging.jpg
1904 cartoon warning attendees of the St. Louis World's Fair of hotel room price gouging

Price gouging is the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. This commonly applies to price increases of basic necessities after natural disasters. 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.

Contents

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.

The term is not in widespread use in mainstream economic theory, but it is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly that raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment. [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.

Laws against price gouging

United States

In the United States, state laws against price gouging have been held as constitutional [3] at the state level as a valid exercise of the police power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures.

As of March 2021, 42 states have emergency regulations or price-gouging statutes [4] Price-gouging is often defined in terms of the three criteria listed below: [5]

  1. Period of emergency: The majority of laws apply only to price shifts during a declared state of emergency or disaster.
  2. Necessary items: Most laws apply exclusively to items essential to survival, such as food, water, and housing.
  3. Price ceilings: Laws limit the maximum price that can be charged for given goods.

Some states that do not have a specific statute addressing price gouging, can nevertheless apply the law as an "unfair" or "deceptive practice" under a consumer protection act. [6]

When the law goes into effect

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]

What the law prohibits

State laws vary on what price increases are permitted during a declared disaster. California has set a 10 percent ceiling on price increases. [12] 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. [13] Some state laws do 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. [14] Laws often include exceptions for price increases that can be justified in terms of the increased cost of supply, transportation, demand, or storage. [15]

Enforcement

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.

California

California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging, generally defined as anything greater than a 10 percent increase in price, once a state of emergency has been declared. [11]   Unlike other states that require the President of the United States or the state's governor to declare a state of emergency, California permits emergency proclamations by officials, boards, and other governing bodies of cities and counties to trigger C.P.C. § 396. [16]   The prohibition lasts for up to 30 days at a time and may be renewed as necessary. [12]   Since October 2017, then-California Governor Jerry Brown repeatedly extended the price-gouging ban for counties impacted by the October 2017 wildfires and subsequently for the counties impacted by the 2018 wildfires. [17]   One of his last acts as governor was to extend the prohibitions until May 31, 2019. [18]

Even though California prohibits price hikes after an emergency is declared, the state, like many others, has virtually no price monitoring structure for oversight. [19] Attorneys and law enforcement generally rely on news reports and word of mouth to learn about price increases that may violate the law. The District Attorney of Sonoma County has attempted to remedy this by creating its own task force focused on combatting and prosecuting price gouging.

In 2018, the California state legislature amended C.P.C. § 396 after the fallout from the 2017 wildfires.  District attorneys reached out to legislators explaining how the current language of section 396 made it difficult to enforce.

The legislature completely rewrote sections 396(e)-(f).  Prior to the revisions, those sections of the law had only specified that the prohibitions on price gouging could be extended for additional 30-day periods and that a violation of the law was punishable by imprisonment in a county jail no longer than one year, by a fine no greater than $10,000 dollars, or both. [20]

The amended version went into effect on January 1, 2019 and aimed to reduce future price increases similar to those that had ensued after the October 2017 fires.  Section 396(e) stipulated, in part, that: “it is unlawful for any person, business, or other entity, to increase the rental price . . . advertised, offered, or charged for housing, to an existing or prospective tenant, by more than 10 percent.” [21]   While the amendment reiterated that landlords may increase the rental price by up to 10 percent if they could demonstrate that the increase in costs were directly attributable to repairs, it also clarified what could not justify an increase in rent. [21]

An increase in rent may not be “based on the length of the rental term, the inclusion of additional goods or services, except with respect to furniture, or that the rent was offered by, or paid by, an insurance company, or other third party, on behalf of a tenant." [21]

Florida

Florida's "state of emergency" law criminalizes price gouging. [22] 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. [23]

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. [24]

United Kingdom

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. Chapter II of the UK Competition Act 1998 prohibits businesses with market dominance from engaging in "abusive" conduct, including "unfair" pricing. [25] 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. [26]

European Union

Similar to UK regulations, the EU does not include “price gouging” explicitly in regulation. 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. [27]

Price gouging and COVID-19

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were shortages of some consumer goods due to supply chain pressures and increased demand as a result of rationing. Such as "Customer limited to 1 package of toilet paper", such rationing creates additional artificial demand. Corona-deal.jpg
In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were shortages of some consumer goods due to supply chain pressures and increased demand as a result of rationing. Such as "Customer limited to 1 package of toilet paper", such rationing creates additional artificial demand.

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. [28] 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. [29] 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 facial masks, N-95 facial masks, 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. [30]

Online price gouging

E-commerce transactions accounted for 14.4% of US retail sales in 2020. [31] The share of e-commerce transactions is expected to continue increasing yearly. E-commerce sellers and consumers in the US are often located in separate states. Concerns relating to the dormant commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution arise in litigation wherein the e-commerce seller is located in a different state than the plaintiff. The dormant commerce clause is the doctrine against extraterritoriality that prohibits states from passing legislation that "excessively burdens interstate commerce." [32] Therefore, states should not regulate commerce taking place outside of state borders. [33] Large e-commerce retail platforms, including Amazon and Walmart, do not require sellers and consumers to be located in the same state for transactions to occur. Questions regarding accountability and enforceability of price gouging regulations in relation to e-commerce transactions have been litigated.

Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron, 2020

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. Amazon is a leading e-commerce platform that has seen an increase of market capitalization of more than $570 billion throughout the pandemic. [34] 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. [35] The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sided with the Online Merchants Guild on June 23, 2020, and agreed that the Kentucky Attorney General cannot enforce the price gouging regulations on Amazon sellers. The case is set to be reviewed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. [36]

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.

People of the State of New York v. Hillandale Farms Corporation, 2020

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. [37] To settle the lawsuit, Hillandale Farms agreed to donate 1.2 million eggs to New York food banks. The case was dismissed with prejudice. [38] This suit was one of several against egg producers during the pandemic, with the Texas Attorney General suing Cal-Maine Foods, [39] the California Attorney General suing Dakota Layers, [40] and the West Virginia Attorney General suing Dutt & Wagner. [41]

Southern District of Mississippi, 2021

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. [42]

Opposition to laws against price gouging

In a 2012 survey of leading American economists by the Initiative on Global Markets, only 8 percent agreed with a proposal to prohibit "unconscionably excessive" price gouging during natural disasters in Connecticut; 51 percent disagreed with the proposal, 15 percent were uncertain, and 8 percent had no opinion. The economists opposing the proposal argued that such legislation would lead to a misallocation of resources and to lower supply and greater scarcity of the resources, or that the proposal in question was vague. [43]

According to the theory of neoclassical economics, anti-price gouging laws prevent allocative efficiency. 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", prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people as they seek to satisfy their desires. [44] Economists such as Thomas Sowell (Chicago School of economics), Donald J. Boudreaux (Austrian School and public choice), and Raymond Niles (Senior Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research) argue that laws prohibiting price gouging dramatically worsen emergencies for both buyers and sellers. [45] [46] [47]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Price fixing</span> Agreement over prices between participants on the same side in a market

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 law enforcement officer (LEO), or peace officer in North American English, is a public-sector or private-sector employee whose duties primarily involve the enforcement of laws, protecting life & property, keeping the peace, and other public safety related duties. Law enforcement officers are designated certain powers & authority by law to allow them to carry out their responsibilities.

Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), was a 1963 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum fat content standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the sale of avocados that did not contain at least 8% oil by weight. Florida, a major avocado producer, employed, for wholesale marketing purposes, a federal standard unrelated to oil content. Most Florida avocados that were marketable at home failed to meet the California standard, because they were a different variety from those sold in California, with a lower fat content. Accordingly, Florida avocado growers brought this suit, arguing (unsuccessfully) that the California law (1) was preempted by federal law, (2) violated equal protection, and (3) unduly burdened and interfered with their right to engage in interstate commerce. The case is widely used in law school casebooks on constitutional law and federal jurisdiction as illustrative of preemption issues.

In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. In the labor market, these agreements prevent workers from freely moving across employers, and weaken the bargaining leverage of workers.

Fair debt collection broadly refers to regulation of the United States debt collection industry at both the federal and state level. At the Federal level, it is primarily governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In addition, many U.S. states also have debt collection laws that regulate the credit and collection industry and give consumer debtors protection from abusive and deceptive practices. Many state laws track the language of the FDCPA, so that they are sometimes referred to as mini-FDCPAs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in California</span> Californias gun law

Gun laws in California regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of California in the United States.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Labor Code</span> Collection of Californian civil law statutes

The California Labor Code, more formally known as "the Labor Code", is a collection of civil law statutes for the State of California. The code is made up of statutes which govern the general obligations and rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the State of California. The stated goal of the Department of Industrial Relations is to promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hoarding (economics)</span> Economic concept

Hoarding in economics refers to the concept of purchasing and storing a large amount of product belonging to a particular market, creating scarcity of that product, and ultimately driving the price of that product up. Commonly hoarded products include assets such as money, gold and public securities, as well as vital goods such as fuel and medicine. Consumers are primarily hoarding resources so that they can maintain their current consumption rate in the event of a shortage. Hoarding resources can prevent or slow products or commodities from traveling through the economy. Subsequently, this may cause the product or commodity to become scarce, causing the value of the resource to rise.

The Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA) is a California law that bans the ownership and transfer of over 50 specific brands and models of firearms, which were classified as assault weapons. Most were rifles, but some were pistols and shotguns. The law was amended in 1999 to classify assault weapons by features of the firearm. Firearms that were legally owned at the time the law was passed were grandfathered if they were registered with the California Department of Justice. The law was overturned in June 2021 in Miller v. Bonta; the ruling is stayed pending appeal.

A private transfer fee covenant is a legal instrument that is filed in the real property records, which imposes an assessment payable in connection with a series of future transfers of title to certain real property. The assessment can be for a fixed amount or a percentage of the sales price, and typically runs for a limited term. Unlike a transfer tax a private transfer fee assessment is payable to an identified third-party, often a community association, the real estate developer, and/or an environmental or charitable organization. According to the Coalition to Save Community Benefits, private transfer fee covenants of some kind encumber approximately eleven million homes in the United States. Although encumbering a statistically small percentage of the estimated 135 million homes nationwide, increased use of private transfer fee assessments, particularly by real estate developers beginning around 2007, when financing became difficult to obtain on commercially reasonable terms, lead to increased regulation at both the federal and state level.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gun laws in Texas</span> Texas gun law

Gun laws in Texas regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Texas.

Commercial bribery is a form of bribery which involves corrupt dealing with the agents or employees of potential buyers to secure an advantage over business competitors. It is a form of corruption which does not necessarily involve government personnel or facilities.

The law of Texas is derived from the Constitution of Texas and consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, regulatory law, as well as case law and local laws and regulations.

Gender-based price discrimination is a form of economic discrimination that involves price disparities for identical goods or services based on an individual's gender, and may reinforce negative stereotypes about both women and men in matching markets. Race and class-based price discrimination also exists. Acts of discrimination often have legal ramifications, but whether gendered price disparities prove an intent to discriminate or constitute illegal discrimination can become a legal inquiry. Policies against gender-based price discrimination is not universally approved and enforced in the United States. Gender-based price discrimination is also described as pink tax.

<i>Chamber of Commerce v. Brown</i> 2008 United States Supreme Court case

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008), is a United States labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

The Better Online Ticket Sales Act of 2016 was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2016. This act was created to thwart attempts by individuals and organization to automate the process of purchasing tickets en masse using ticket bots. Later, these tickets are often resold on third-party sites for profit at a markup over face value, or at a loss. This activity is also referred to as ticket scalping. The BOTS Act outlawed the resale of tickets purchased using bot technology and set a fine of $16,000 for violations of the act, which is enforced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Private Attorneys General Act</span>

The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) is a California statute that authorizes aggrieved employees to bring actions for civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California against their employers for California Labor Code violations. PAGA's purpose is not to recover damages or receive restitution, but rather to allow citizens to act as private attorneys general and enforce the Labor Code. Because PAGA suits are fundamentally law enforcement actions, aggrieved employees must notify the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA)—the state agency that enforces California labor laws—of any alleged Labor Code violations. An aggrieved employee can only file a PAGA lawsuit after the LWDA elects not to pursue its own action against the employer.

References

  1. ↑ "Provinces promised crackdown on pandemic price gouging. In fact, there have been few repercussions | CBC News". CBC. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  2. ↑ "Lawrence Kudlow". Jewishworldreview.com. June 14, 2000. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  3. ↑ "State's anti-price-gouging law upheld". Business First of Louisville. October 6, 2009. Retrieved August 19, 2010.
  4. ↑ "Price-Gouging Rules, E-Commerce To Collide At 6th Circ. - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  5. 1 2 M. Zwolinski (2008). "The Ethics of Price Gouging". Business Ethics Quarterly. 18 (3): 347–378. doi:10.5840/beq200818327. S2CID   153570535. SSRN   1099567.
  6. ↑ "Spokane seller accused of price gouging coronavirus supplies on Amazon". KREM. March 31, 2020.
  7. ↑ Ala. Code § 8-31-4 (2017).
  8. ↑ Fla. Stat. § 501.160 (2017).
  9. ↑ Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-25 (2008).
  10. ↑ Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01 (2009).
  11. 1 2 Cal. Penal Code § 396 (West 2018).
  12. 1 2 Cal. Penal Code § 396(b) (West 2018) (stipulating that a person or entity may not sell any of the enumerated goods or services for more than 10 percent more than the price that vendor charged for that good or service “immediately prior to the proclamation or declaration of emergency”).
  13. ↑ Fla. Stat. § 501.160(b) (2017).
  14. ↑ Id.; Ala. Code § 8-31-4 (2017).
  15. ↑ See Cal. Penal Code § 396 (West 2018). California Penal Code Section 396 permits price increases greater than 10 percent if the vendor demonstrates that the markup results from “the seller's supplier or additional costs of providing the good or service during the state of emergency” and that the price represents no greater than 10 percent above the total cost to seller plus the customary markup. Landlords may also increase the cost of their rental units by an additional 5 percent if they are renting a previously unfurnished residence with furniture.  
  16. ↑ See e.g., Ala. Code § 8-31-4 (2017); Fla. Stat. § 501.160 (2017); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-25 (2008); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01 (2009).
  17. ↑ "Governor Jerry Brown Extends Price Gouging Protections". December 2018.
  18. ↑ Id.
  19. ↑ Emily Bae, Note, Are Anti-Price Gouging Regulations Effective Against Sellers During Disasters?, 4 Entrepreneurial Bus. L.J. 79, 80 (2009).
  20. ↑ Cal. Penal Code § 396(e)-(f) (West 2018).
  21. 1 2 3 Cal. Penal Code § 396(e) (West 2019).
  22. ↑ "Florida Attorney General - Price Gouging Frequently Asked Questions". Florida office of the attorney general . Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  23. ↑ Bourne, Ryan; Subramaniam, Brad. "Longstanding Anti-Price Gouging Statutes Worsen Shortages". www.cato.org. Cato Institute. Retrieved May 16, 2022.
  24. ↑ "The Problem with Price Gouging Laws" (PDF). Object.cato.org. Retrieved September 25, 2016.
  25. ↑ "Competition Act 1998".
  26. ↑ "COVID-19: UK Antitrust Authority Launches Investigation Into Suspected Excessive Pricing for Hand Sanitisers, and Warns of Further Investigations Against Pharmacies". JD Supra. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  27. ↑ "Chillin' Competition Conference, Brussels, 21 November 2016". Archived from the original on November 29, 2019.
  28. ↑ Higgins, Tucker (March 15, 2020). "Trump says 'relax,' urges against hoarding as coronavirus cases soar and Fed cuts rates to zero". CNBC. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  29. ↑ Nicomedes, Christian Jasper C.; Avila, Ronn Mikhael A. (November 1, 2020). "An analysis on the panic during COVID-19 pandemic through an online form". Journal of Affective Disorders. 276: 14–22. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.046. ISSN   0165-0327. PMC   7362858 . PMID   32697692.
  30. ↑ Levenson, Michael (March 28, 2020). "Price Gouging Complaints Surge Amid Coronavirus Pandemic". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  31. ↑ "United States: e-commerce share of retail sales 2024". Statista. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  32. ↑ "Commerce Clause". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  33. ↑ "Fourth Circuit Holds Maryland Anti-Price Gouging Statute Violates Dormant Commerce Clause". Wake Forest Law Review. April 18, 2018. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  34. ↑ Klebnikov, Sergei. "5 Big Numbers That Show Amazon's Explosive Growth During The Coronavirus Pandemic". Forbes. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  35. ↑ "Online Merchants Guild v. Cameron, No. 3:2020cv00029 - Document 36 (E.D. Ky. 2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  36. ↑ "Court of Appeals to Decide Whether Kentucky Price Gouging Statute Violates Commerce Clause". JD Supra. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
  37. ↑ "Attorney General James Sues One of the Nation's Largest Egg Producers for Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Pandemic". ag.ny.gov. August 11, 2020. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  38. ↑ "1.2 Million Free Eggs Coming to New York in Pandemic Price Gouging Settlement". NBC New York. April 2021. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  39. ↑ "AG Paxton Files Lawsuit to Halt Price Gouging by Cal-Maine Foods, Inc". Texas Attorney General. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  40. ↑ "Attorney General Becerra Petitions Court to Require California Egg Distributor and its Parent Company to Comply with Investigation into Alleged Price Gouging Violations". State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General. August 20, 2020. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  41. ↑ "W.Va. Attorney General sues over alleged egg price gouging". www.wsaz.com. Associated Press. July 15, 2020. Retrieved April 19, 2021.
  42. ↑ "Businessman Charged in Scheme to Hoard Personal Protective Equipment and Price Gouge Health Care Providers". January 27, 2021.
  43. ↑ "Price gouging". Initiative on Global Markets. May 2, 2012. Retrieved June 5, 2022.
  44. ↑ Hayek, Friedrich A., "The Use of Knowledge in Society". 1945. Library of Economics and Liberty. 6 December 2010.
  45. ↑ Sowell, Thomas (September 14, 2004). ""Price Gouging" in Florida". Capitalism Magazine. Retrieved March 9, 2022.
  46. ↑ Boudreaux, Donald J. (April 1, 2005). "On Price Gouging | Donald J. Boudreaux". fee.org. Retrieved March 9, 2022.
  47. ↑ "Economists Petition Politicians to Repeal Laws against 'Price Gouging'". The Objective Standard. April 16, 2020. Retrieved March 9, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.