Ordinance2026-308

Add regulation of dynamic pricing and prohibition of surveillance pricing in Retail Code

In brief

From the official impact statement

The purpose of the Consumers Opposed to Surveillance Technology (COST) Ordinance is to prevent retailers from using personal data to charge customers different prices for the same product.Retailers have historically established the price of their goods based on market factors such as the cost of obtaining the product and cost of labor involved in making the product available. As a result, the public expects that the price of an item would be the same price that any other consumer would be charged for the same item at the same retailer.New technology such as artificial intelligence, more sophisticated techniques for collecting personal data, and digital price labels has…

Official impact statement

Proposal details

From the official record
Who is affected

The goal of this ordinance is to ensure there is greater price stability on the items many communities rely on. Dynamic and surveillance pricing has the potential to create financial strains on all Portlanders, with the impacts most acutely felt by working communities, underrepresented communities, and those living on fixed incomes. Individuals and organizations representing working people communities have brought concerns forward about this practice and asked that Council address it.

Official community impact statement
Financial impact

This ordinance does not adjust or reallocate resources for staffing. Implementation by the administration may require prioritization of allocated resources as businesses come into compliance with regulatory framework outlined in the code. The administration should consider budget proposals for the FY27 implementation if the administration deems it necessary.

Official financial impact statement

Recorded action

Sources & history

Documents7

Official title: Add regulation of dynamic pricing and prohibition of surveillance pricing in Retail Code (add Code Chapter 7.28)

Ordinance 2026-308Current proposal · Portland.gov
Show 1 more documents
Read the full official text

The City of Portland ordains.Section 1. The Council finds:There is an increasing concern among Portland residents about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and personal data in technology, especially when it comes to consumer interactions with retailers and access to critical goods such as food, medicine, household items, etc.Between inflation, tariffs, supply chain issues, and dynamics in the economy, the cost of living has increased markedly in recent years on a wide array of goods and services. Portland residents report that affordability is one of their top concerns and that many are struggling to keep up with the financial demands of current times.Certain price-setting tools put an additional cost burden on Portland residents and increase the risk of price discrimination if individuals are charged a higher amount based on their identification with protected classes or demographic groups.The City has a vested interest in protecting its residents and communities from consumer practices which can be exploitative and discriminatory. The price of an item should be based on the cost of producing the item, not on who is buying it.This City Council has a precedent of acting in the interest of consumers, such as when it banned the use of certain algorithmic devices in establishing rental amounts for housing purposes in Ordinance 192122. Additionally, there is a precedent for states and jurisdictions across the nation prohibiting or limiting surveillance and dynamic pricing among retailers, as documented in New York, Connecticut, and Maryland.Price decreases in the forms of coupons, discounts, and loyalty programs are beneficial to both Portland residents and retailers and should be permitted.NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:Add City Code Chapter 7.28 as shown in Exhibit A, also known as the Consumers Opposed to Surveillance Technology (COST) Ordinance.

Meeting history1 meeting · 3 votes
Referred to City Council as amendedAgenda item 4

Motion to amend the Ordinance 2026-308 as shown in Zimmerman 1: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (5): Morillo, Zimmerman, Avalos, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney) Motion to amend the Ordinance 2026-308 as shown in Morillo 1, inclusive of Zimmerman 1: Moved by Morillo and seconded by Avalos. (Aye (2): Morillo, Avalos; Nay (3): Zimmerman, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney). Motion failed to pass. Motion to refer the Ordinance as amended, Document Number 2026-308, to City Council with the recommendation it be passed: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (4): Zimmerman, Avalos, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney; Nay (1): Morillo)

Read all 3 exact motions
Sep 22, 2026 · Amendment · Recorded

Motion to amend the Ordinance 2026-308 as shown in Zimmerman 1: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (5): Morillo, Zimmerman, Avalos, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney)

Sep 22, 2026 · Amendment · Failed

Motion to amend the Ordinance 2026-308 as shown in Morillo 1, inclusive of Zimmerman 1: Moved by Morillo and seconded by Avalos. (Aye (2): Morillo, Avalos; Nay (3): Zimmerman, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney). Motion failed to pass.

Sep 22, 2026 · Main · Passed

Motion to refer the Ordinance as amended, Document Number 2026-308, to City Council with the recommendation it be passed: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (4): Zimmerman, Avalos, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney; Nay (1): Morillo)

Latest recorded vote shown above
Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Sep 22, 20262 yes · 3 no

Motion to amend the Ordinance 2026-308 as shown in Morillo 1, inclusive of Zimmerman 1: Moved by Morillo and seconded by Avalos. (Aye (2): Morillo, Avalos; Nay (3): Zimmerman, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney). Motion failed to pass.

Meeting-level motion or recommendation · Sep 22, 20264 yes · 1 no

Motion to refer the Ordinance as amended, Document Number 2026-308, to City Council with the recommendation it be passed: Moved by Zimmerman and seconded by Ryan. (Aye (4): Zimmerman, Avalos, Ryan, Pirtle-Guiney; Nay (1): Morillo)

About this recordSource checks & change history

0 human-reviewed findings are linked to this record. Unreviewed machine-extracted fragments are not presented as findings.

Technical information-completeness check · Ready With Caveats · Rules v2

This checks whether decision-relevant categories appear in the published packet. It does not recommend approval or opposition.

Decision definition

The official title and operative text identify the requested action.

Complete
Official legal text

Official text was found. This check does not certify that every referenced exhibit is complete.

Complete
Financial impact

The official impact statement includes financial information.

Complete
Funding source

The impact statement identifies funding information without an explicit unresolved-source qualifier.

Complete
Supporting documents

6 linked supporting documents found; presence alone does not verify their internal completeness.

Complete
Referenced exhibit integrity

The text references exhibits. This guide has not yet automatically verified that each referenced exhibit is present, populated, and internally consistent.

Unknown
Counterparty acceptance

The reviewed action is not expressly identified as a non-binding agreement.

Not Applicable
Implementation

A direction, reporting requirement, or deadline appears in the official text.

Complete
Document stability

Stability requires at least two observed snapshots; the system will update this after another ingestion.

Unknown
Source record
First discovered
Aug 31, 2026, 5:05 PM PDT
Last checked
Sep 29, 2026, 9:07 AM PDT
Evidence hash
d192a71933c659cc
Guide status
Deterministic baseline
Append-only timeline
  1. SOURCE UPDATED

    Referred to City Council as amended on September 22, 2026 by City Life Committee

  2. Council Action

    Referred to City Council as amended

  3. SOURCE UPDATED

    Referred to City Life Committee by Council President

  4. DOCUMENT PUBLISHED

    Referred to City Life Committee by Council President

Independent guide by Portland Civic Lab. Official City records are authoritative. Votes alone do not establish a Councilor’s reasons.