Price Gouging Enforcement to Continue Post-Pandemic
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.15.22
Though many states have either rescinded or allowed their pandemic-related declarations of emergency to expire, state attorneys general are continuing to monitor and enforce against price gouging.
For example, several state attorneys general have recently issued press releases regarding the potential price gouging of gas and oil after President Biden announced a ban on imports of Russian oil, coal, and natural gas. New York Attorney General James issued a warning to consumers, stating, “New York law prohibits sellers of fuel and other vital and necessary goods from charging unconscionably excessive prices during an abnormal market disruption, including disruptions caused by world conflicts.” The press release encourages consumers to report price gouging of gas or fuel. Nevada Attorney General Ford issued a similar statement, which also encourages consumers to submit complaints about any price gouging they encounter: “As the price for fuel increases, my Office will use every tool at our disposal, including the laws we sponsored and passed last session regarding price gouging and unfair and deceptive trade practices, to fully investigate any suspected instances of price gouging at the pump. . .While most retailers are increasing prices due to disruptions in the supply chain, I will not allow any bad actors to artificially inflate prices of basic needs to rip off Nevadans trying to drive to work or to be with loved ones.”
While most states’ laws that directly target price gouging are only in effect during a state of emergency (e.g. Covid or weather related emergency declarations), that does not mean there has to be an emergency in place for attorneys general to enforce against what they believe is unfair pricing. Instead, they will enforce against this conduct using their state’s general law against unfair and deceptive acts and practices (“UDAP law”). To determine what conduct is and isn’t permitted, they will look to either their UDAP law or their price gouging law as a guidepost.
Notably, price gouging laws are not a blanket prohibition on raising prices. They only prohibit raising prices in an unfair way. This means it is generally acceptable to raise prices in response to rising costs the seller is facing along the supply chain or otherwise. However, it would be a best practice to maintain records of cost increases the business is facing in order to demonstrate that the price increases are reasonable. Further, some of the laws prescribe the permitted methodology for how to calculate a permissible price increase tied to price increases outside of the sellers’ control. Businesses should also continue to monitor state price gouging laws to ensure pricing behavior is not likely to arouse regulatory scrutiny under their guidelines.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
