Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

New York Attorney General Eyeing Enhanced Price Gouging Regulations

Author: Howard D. Bader

Date: April 6, 2022

Key Contacts

Back
NY Attorney General Eyeing Enhanced Price Gouging Regulations

While COVID-19 may be receding, price increases for essential goods and services show no signs of slowing down in light of ongoing supply chain issues and growing inflation...

While COVID-19 may be receding, price increases for essential goods and services show no signs of slowing down in light of ongoing supply chain issues and growing inflation. In response, regulators have signaled that they will remain vigilant in policing businesses for price gouging.

On March 4, 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is the first step in enacting new price gouging rules. According to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), the rulemaking will examine and address new evidence that some of the recent price hikes by large corporations were driven by profit not increased costs.

“The rising costs of essentials and basic household items has had a real impact on working families,” Attorney General James said in a press statement.“Throughout the pandemic, hardworking New Yorkers have been struggling to make ends meet, but big corporations have been celebrating record-breaking profits. It doesn’t add up. My office is prepared to use every tool in our toolbox to crack down on price gouging and pandemic profiteering.”

New York’s Existing Price Gouging Law

New York’s existing law, New York General Business Law § 396-r (GBL 396-r), prohibits any entity in the supply chain from taking advantage of an “abnormal disruption of the market” to sell vital goods and services for an “unconscionably excessive price.” The statute defines an “abnormal disruption of the market” as either an “actual or imminently threatened” change in the market resulting from “stress of weather, convulsion of nature, failure or shortage of electric power or other source of energy, strike, civil disorder, war, military action, national or local emergency” or a disruption “which results in the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor.” Covered goods and services include: (1) vital and necessary consumer goods and services, (2) vital and necessary medical supplies and services, and (3) other vital and necessary goods and services “used to promote the health or welfare of the public.”

The term “unconscionably excessive price” is not defined in the statute. However, GBL 396-r does establish two types of “unconscionably excessive” pricing: 1. where “the amount of the excess in price is unconscionably extreme”; and 2. where the price was set through either “an exercise of unfair leverage” or “unconscionable means.”

A prima facie case for a violation of GBL 396-r can be established by showing either (i) “a gross disparity” between the allegedly excessive price, and “the price at which such goods or services were sold or offered for sale by the defendant in the usual course of business immediately prior to the onset of the abnormal disruption of the market,” or (ii) that the allegedly excessive price “grossly exceeded the price at which the same or similar goods or services were readily obtainable in the trade area.” Once established, a prima facie case can be rebutted by showing that the price increase “preserves the margin of profit” that the defendant received prior to the disruption, or that the defendant incurred “additional costs” not within its control. These defenses only apply to the margins and costs of the goods and services for which prices were raised.

Violations of GBL 396-r can be costly. The statute authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief, restitution, and civil penalties of the greater of $25,000 per violation or three times the gross receipts for the goods or services at issue.

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The NY OAG’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) raises concerns that some of the price increases for vital and necessary goods may violate New York law. According to the ANPR, while many recent price hikes “were legal, [] when steep price hikes during an abnormal disruption are accompanied by increases in profitability, it raises questions about whether price gouging occurred.”

In its ANPR, the NY OAG cites the beef and shipping industries as examples of pricing for essential goods during the pandemic that raise questions about “unconscionably excessive pricing” and the use of “unfair leverage or unconscionable means.” According to the NYOAG, beef prices rose 30 percent, while meatpackers experienced an average of 120 percent increase in profits. Other industries that have seen significant price and profitability increases include auto dealers, supermarkets, fast food, oil and natural gas, and lumber.

The ANPR also discusses the unique harms caused by price gouging and the economic justification for prohibiting it. According to the OAG, the State’s price gouging law “serves the interest of economic stability, by preventing a disruption from triggering a broader economic downturn and exacerbating individual suffering. Most importantly, the law protects poor and working-class New Yorkers who are the most likely to be exposed to price increases in essential items, the least likely to have savings to cover crises, and the most likely to have to choose between going into debt or foregoing essential goods and services.”

The ANPR seeks comments on price gouging generally, including what kinds of price gouging by suppliers and distributors is most likely to occur in a pandemic, and how would enforcers detect it. It also solicits feedback on specific issues, such as how to best define what constitutes an “exercise of unfair leverage or unconscionable means” and what methods of measurement are appropriate to calculate any threshold for a presumption that an excess in price is “unconscionably extreme.”

What’s Next?

Public comments in response to the ANPR may be submitted immediately and until April 22, 2022, at stopillegalprofiteering@ag.ny.gov. Requesting public comments is part of the three-step process. Once public comments are submitted OAG will review them and then propose new rules. Thereafter, the public will have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rules. Following the 60 days, OAG will promulgate new price gouging rules.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Howard Bader, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable? post image

Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "Rule 26 Expert Discovery: When an Expert Witness Uses AI, Is It Discoverable?"
How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery post image

How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]

Author: Chris Seelinger

Link to post with title - "How Expert Witness AI Use Ends Up in Discovery"
The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore post image

The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "The Screenshot Problem: Why Nothing Is Really Private Anymore"
BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers post image

BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "BESS Project Agreements: Allocating Risk Among Developers, EPC Contractors, and Equipment Suppliers"
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected? post image

IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]

Author: Michael Mietlicki

Link to post with title - "IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?"
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next post image

Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!