[IG_Semmelweiss]

seems incomplete. There's no point in banning anything, if anyone can just do something banned, flout the law, with no consequences.

and -at least in this article- the consequences seem noticeably missing

EDIT: Althought the article does not include it, the bill (linked from the article) does.

[adestefan]

It’s right at the top of the linked bill.

The attorney general or a district attorney may bring a civil action on behalf of the state against a person that violates the prohibition against individualized price or wage setting based on surveillance data to seek the imposition of civil penalties. In addition, a person aggrieved by a violation of the prohibition specified in the bill may bring a civil action on behalf of themself or a group of similarly situated persons to restrain further violations and to recover damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. A violation of the prohibition against individualized price setting or individualized wage setting is a deceptive trade practice under the "Colorado Consumer Protection Act".

[pnw]

Allowing private right of action means this will be weaponized by attorneys in the same way the ADA has. Just scanning the bill, any small business in the US using dynamic pricing, targeted discounts or "VIP pricing" on their website would be open to suits from Colorado residents. The definitions are extremely broad and there is no safe harbor for small companies either. Damages are also uncapped and apparently Colorado allows treble damages for CCPA violations.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Sounds great! The theory behind capitalism only works if prices are transparent and goods are transferable. These sorts of "special discounts" are fundamentally harmful to the economy as a whole.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The theory behind capitalism only works if prices are transparent and goods are transferable.

The theory behind capitalism requires people to take into account what they know when making decisions.

Suppose you have a business where many customers expect to be able to try the product before committing to buy it so the cost of paying for shipping for "free returns" has to be incorporated into the advertised price. Then you notice that a subset of customers have a better idea of what they want and never trouble you with returns, so you want to give them a discount to try to get more of their business.

That's capitalism working the way it's supposed to. The customers who consume fewer resources get to pay lower prices. But it's the thing this bill prohibits, isn't it?

[thayne]

If capatilism was working the way it was supposed to, the customer could choose between paying more up front, but having the option of a "free" return, or paying less upfront byt having to pay for a return (or not be able to return it).

And for that matter, the customer would have enough information to know the quality of the product before purchasing, but that is often not possible.

[AnthonyMouse]

Everybody knows the cows are not actually spheres. It's about how you deal with it.

If you try to sell "return insurance" then some customers don't buy it but end up wanting to return it anyway and then leave you a bad review for not having free returns. That costs you more than charging somewhat higher prices and having free returns, so that's what you do instead. But now efficiency requires some other mechanism of allowing the people who don't do excessive returns to pay a lower price.

Also, suppose you actually did sell return insurance. Then you notice that a subset of the customers who buy return insurance rarely use it, so you want to give them a discount to try to get more of their business.

[irishcoffee]

I can see how say, a roofing business might have a “VIP” sale during a slow season, such that a discounted contract is signed and money is exchanged in the future when the weather doesn’t prohibit the work.

I don’t think that is unreasonable.

[Jiro]

The season is the same for all customers, so that isn't surveillance pricing.

[wat10000]

I can see how a roofing business might buy your online shopping history, deduce that you drive a Lexus, and bump up their prices. Then profile you as not very handy, and cut corners knowing you won’t spot the issues.

[irishcoffee]

As opposed to just using Google Maps or driving by your house? Those options are a lot cheaper.

[thayne]

On the other hand, without private right to action, consumers may have no recourse if the AG doesn't wish to pursue action (possibly due to corruption, or lack of resources).

[JumpCrisscross]

> any small business in the US using dynamic pricing, targeted discounts or "VIP pricing" on their website would be open to suits from Colorado residents

The solution is to use reasonable efforts to block Colorado residents if you can’t comply with the law. That’s a tradeoff a group of people are allowed to make for themselves.

[AnthonyMouse]

The problem is that a small business in Florida or Massachusetts that does 95% of their business in their own state may have no idea that this Colorado law exists until someone sues them over it.

We don't really want small companies to have to start blocking people in other states by default. That's not great for interstate competition.

[mememememememo]

Is that a bad thing? If you ate going to discount (B2C), do it for all or do it for none.

[dickersnoodle]

You talk about that like it's a problem...

[wat10000]

Ok, but surely there are also downsides.

[wat10000]

The article links to the law. Looks like this is an addition to the existing law about unfair or deceptive trade practices. That allows for a civil penalty of up to $20,000 per person or transaction involved.