AI Frontier Institute

Prohibition from using artificial intelligence to dynamically set product prices

View primary source →

Minnesota S.F. 3098 (1st Engrossment) has not been enacted. It was last reported out of the Judiciary and Public Safety committee as amended, with no recommendation, and re-referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection on 2026-03-18. If enacted, it would add Minnesota Statutes section 325D.141, which would prohibit surveillance-based price and wage discrimination. Under subdivision 1, this means using an automated decision system (software or processes that assist or replace human decisions, including machine learning and AI) to set individualized prices or wages based on surveillance data about a consumer or worker. Surveillance data covers personal characteristics, behaviors, or biometrics. Subdivision 2 bans surveillance-based price discrimination. Exceptions apply if a person shows that price differences reflect cost differences (such as delivery distance or time) or publicly disclosed group discounts open to anyone who qualifies (such as teachers, veterans, seniors, or students). An insurer that inputs only risk-relevant data is also excepted. Refusals of credit or a transaction based on a federal Fair Credit Reporting Act consumer report are not violations. Subdivision 3 bans surveillance-based wage discrimination. Exceptions apply if individualized wages rest solely on data directly related to the tasks the worker was hired to perform, or on differences in the worker's cost of providing labor. The person must also disclose in plain language, before hiring, what data the system considers and how. Declining to hire someone who has not previously worked for the person or its affiliates is not covered. Subdivision 4 requires anyone using such a system for prices or wages to publish reasonable procedures. These must ensure data accuracy, let consumers and workers correct or challenge data, and let them request information on what data is considered and how. Subdivision 5 creates a presumption of violation in a proceeding if the plaintiff shows that different prices were offered for the same or a substantially similar product in a similar period, or that different wages were paid for the same or similar tasks. The defendant can rebut the presumption by showing the difference was not informed by surveillance data or by meeting the exceptions.

← Back to the tracker