WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 992

Trade: consumer goods and services; use of dynamic pricing in the sale of certain consumer items; prohibit. Amends sec. 2 of 2011 PA 15 (MCL 445.312) & adds sec. 7a. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0993'26

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rosemary Bayer and 4 co-sponsors

Prohibits dynamic pricing for total shelf prices at retail, requiring static display and uniform adjustments with clear notices.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
#consumerprotection:unfairtradepractices #trade:consumergoodsandservices #trade:fairtradepractices
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 992

Overview

Senate Bill 992 (2025-2026) from Michigan seeks to prohibit the use of dynamic pricing for the total price of consumer items offered for sale at retail. The bill would amend the Shopping Reform and Modernization Act (2011 PA 15) by adding a new section (Sec. 7a) and clarifying definitions in Sec. 2. It ties to SB 993 of the same session for enactment.

Purpose and intent

  • To ban dynamic pricing in the display of the total price of consumer items at the point of sale.
  • To ensure price transparency and uniform treatment of price changes at retail storefronts.
  • To limit price adjustments based on external conditions and demographic attributes, except under narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., spoilage, restocking, time-limited promotions) that are applied uniformly and transparently.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions (Sec. 2): The bill reiterates and clarifies terms related to advertising, display, and pricing, including:
    • Dynamic pricing: a price that changes in real-time or outside normal hours based on external conditions (time of day, day of week, weather, customer attributes, etc.).
    • Total price: the full purchase price excluding sales tax and container deposits.
    • Other terms such as “advertise,” “advertising,” “automatic checkout system,” “consumer item,” and “sale at retail.”
  • Prohibition on dynamic pricing (Sec. 7a(1)):
    • A retailer may not use dynamic pricing in the display of the total price of a consumer item offered for sale at retail.
  • Permitted price adjustments (Sec. 7a(2)):
    • Price adjustments for spoilage, restocking, or time-limited promotions are allowed if:
    • Made by an employee.
    • Applied uniformly to all customers.
    • Clearly displayed.
  • Use of digital price tags (Sec. 7a(3)):
    • Digital price tags may be used to display the total price if:
    • The price shown matches the total price charged at the point of sale.
    • The price is not subject to dynamic pricing.
  • Coupons and discounts (Sec. 7a(4)):
    • The prohibition does not prevent customers from using uniformly available coupons, loyalty discounts, or manufacturer rebates that are offered on the same terms to every customer and do not vary with external conditions.
  • Enforcement and penalties (Sec. 7a(5)):
    • Violations would constitute a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
  • Effective date (Enacting section):
    • The act’s effective date is contingent on enactment of SB 993 (the companion bill).

Who would be affected

  • Retailers that sell consumer items at retail in Michigan.
  • Retailers’ pricing practices, particularly those that use dynamic pricing based on time, demand, weather, customer attributes, or other external factors.
  • Businesses employing digital price tags for total price display, subject to the matching-price requirement.
  • Consumers, who would benefit from price transparency and protection against dynamic price fluctuations at the point of sale.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduced: May 20, 2026.
  • Referred to: Senate Committee on Economic and Community Development.
  • The bill’s enactment is linked to SB 993; it does not take effect unless SB 993 is enacted into law.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Market impact: Retailers would need to adjust pricing systems to ensure the total price display is static and not dynamic, potentially reducing price discrimination based on non-price factors.
  • Compliance: Businesses must ensure uniform application of any price adjustments for spoilage, restocking, or promotions, and clearly display such adjustments.
  • Consumer protection: Strengthens price transparency and reduces surprises from dynamic pricing at checkout, aligning with consumer protection principles.
  • Enforcement: Violations would fall under the Michigan CPA, which could imply consumer-facing remedies and potential penalties for noncompliance.

Note: As the bill is contingent on the companion SB 993, final applicability depends on the enactment of both measures.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.