What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Price gouging generally means charging an allegedly excessive price, but what counts as illegal gouging depends on the law in question. Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign proposed asking Congress to create a federal ban focused on food and groceries, with investigative and penalty authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general. It was a campaign proposal, not an enacted federal law; the campaign’s public materials emphasized price increases on essential goods during emergencies or crises but did not settle the full legal test.
What does price gouging mean?
In everyday use, price gouging describes a seller charging what a buyer considers an unfairly high price, often when demand surges or goods are scarce. The phrase does not by itself identify a single national legal standard. State laws use different triggers, price comparisons and exceptions, so a price that violates one state’s emergency law may not meet another state’s test. FactCheck.org’s September 2024 explanation gives examples of those differences.
That distinction matters when discussing Harris’s plan: the campaign described a proposed rule against unfairly exploiting consumers, not a general government-set ceiling on everyday grocery prices.
What did Harris propose?
A federal rule for food and groceries
On August 14, 2024, Harris’s campaign said she and running mate Tim Walz would work with Congress to advance what it called the first federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries. The campaign said the legislation should establish rules against companies unfairly exploiting consumers to run up excessive profits and give the FTC and state attorneys general new authority to investigate and impose penalties. Its fact sheet also connected the proposal to broader campaign arguments about competition in the food industry and support for smaller businesses; those were campaign claims and commitments, not demonstrated effects of a law. The campaign’s policy page set out the proposal.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
The campaign later emphasized emergencies
In a September 2024 economic policy plan, the campaign described the target as “nefarious price gouging on essential goods during emergencies or times of crisis.” Harris had made the crisis focus explicit in Raleigh on August 16, saying, “I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food.” She also promised penalties for companies that “exploit crises and break the rules.” The remarks describe her campaign commitment, not enacted statutory language. The transcript of her Raleigh remarks records those statements.
The published campaign materials did not specify a complete threshold, emergency trigger, cost defense, enforcement procedure or set of remedies. Those are consequential choices: a law must define which events activate it, what goods and sellers it covers, how much of a price increase is unlawful, how documented cost increases are treated, which agencies can bring cases and what penalties apply. The plan’s broad description alone cannot answer those questions.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
How state laws show why the details matter
State examples illustrate possible designs, not a uniform rule for the country. FactCheck.org reports that California’s law can prohibit increases greater than 10% over a pre-emergency price under specified conditions. Florida’s law uses a “gross disparity” comparison with the average price in the 30 days before a disaster declaration. The same article describes a 10% threshold in Delaware during a COVID-19 recovery period and a 20% threshold in Pennsylvania. The rules differ in their triggers, baselines and treatment of seller costs; none should be treated as the definition of price gouging in every state. FactCheck.org discusses these state-law examples.
What are the arguments for and against a federal ban?
Why supporters favor it
Economists supporting the idea told FactCheck.org that a federal rule could deter sharp price increases during crises and reach conduct involving interstate commerce. Supporters see a national law as a way to address emergency pricing across state lines and give regulators tools to investigate conduct they consider exploitative. The effect would depend on the final law’s definitions and enforcement, which the campaign proposal had not fully supplied.
Why critics warn about shortages
Critics interviewed by FactCheck.org argued that restricting emergency price increases could weaken incentives to transport or sell scarce goods in affected areas. In a crisis, higher prices can signal scarcity and attract additional supply; if a rule prevents prices from covering the added cost or risk of delivery, fewer sellers may be willing to serve the area. Whether that trade-off occurs, and how strongly, depends on the rule’s threshold, cost exceptions and practical enforcement. These are arguments about possible effects, not settled outcomes.
Emergency pricing is not the same question as ordinary inflation
The campaign’s later description focused on crises, while much of the debate about grocery bills concerns price changes over time under ordinary market conditions. FactCheck.org reported that the economists it interviewed generally expected the proposal to have little or no direct effect on then-current grocery prices because those conditions were not the emergency scenario described. The article also quoted Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics as saying he did not observe the emergency circumstances described in the proposal at that time. That assessment does not resolve the broader question of what caused inflation over several years.
Rank #4
In August 2024, then-FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said grocery prices had risen sharply during the pandemic “due in large part to higher costs and supply chain disruptions,” and that costs had since fallen as supply chains improved. Her remarks concerned the FTC’s inquiry into grocery prices and profits, not the details of Harris’s proposed legislation. The FTC published Khan’s remarks on August 1, 2024.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the 2024 price and opinion figures do—and do not—show
These figures describe specific periods and questions; they are not current 2026 measurements or interchangeable indicators.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
| Figure | What it measures | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| 21.6% since January 2021 | The increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “food at home” prices, cited by FactCheck.org in October 2024. | A cumulative change from a specified starting month, not a year-over-year rate. FactCheck.org cited the figure in its October 2024 analysis. |
| 1.1% over the prior 12 months | The year-over-year increase in average grocery prices reported by the Associated Press in August 2024. | A different period and measure from the 21.6% cumulative increase; the AP described it as close to pre-pandemic increases. The Associated Press reported the figure in August 2024. |
| 65% support; 24% oppose | YouGov, August 2024, on a question phrased as support for “capping increases on food and grocery prices,” as reported by FactCheck.org. | Those responses apply to that wording and date; they do not establish support for every possible legal design. FactCheck.org reported the poll result. |
| 5% support; 65% moderate or strong disagreement | A 2022 University of Chicago economists’ poll about a related proposal addressing “unconscionably excessive” prices during an exceptional market shock, as reported by FactCheck.org. | This was a different poll, year and proposal wording from the YouGov question. FactCheck.org reported this result as well. |
Did the proposal become law?
The 2024 campaign proposal itself was not an enacted federal law. The congressional records cited for the later Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025 show bills introduced and referred to committees, not an enactment. For example, the Senate record says S.2321 was introduced July 17, 2025 and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the House record for H.R.4528 likewise identifies introduction and committee referral. Those records establish the status described there, not the status of every federal bill or any later action. Congress.gov’s S.2321 page and GovInfo’s H.R.4528 record provide the bill details.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
