Price Increases in a Crisis: The Regulatory and Criminal Risks
An understanding of the regulatory framework surrounding price gouging is imperative for companies that may find it necessary to raise prices on regulated products during a crisis.
March 21, 2020 at 03:07 PM
5 minute read
As the COVID-19 virus has proliferated across the United States, so have reports of widespread shortages of specific consumer goods, including masks, hand sanitizers and paper products. These reports were quickly followed by claims of price gouging, a practice of profiteering in a time of public crisis that is prohibited under a patchwork of state and federal laws. These laws can be enforced by federal authorities, state attorneys general and, in certain states, by a private right of action that can support an award of penalties and other remedies if the conduct is proven. An understanding of this regulatory framework is imperative for companies that may find it necessary to raise prices on regulated products during a crisis.
California Regulations
The triggering event under most of these laws is the declaration of an emergency by a local, state or federal authority. For example, in California, Penal Code § 396 prohibits increasing prices on necessities by more than 10% within 30 days after an emergency has been declared by the president, the governor or a city or county executive officer, which period can be extended.
Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in California on March 4, 2020, something that at least 23 other states and the federal government had done by March 13. Following the emergency declaration, district attorneys in San Diego, Los Angeles and Orange County have already promised to prosecute incidents of price gouging.
By March 18, sellers allegedly offering masks, gloves, disinfectants and toilet paper for as much as 20 times their pre-emergency retail price on websites such as Facebook, Craigslist and OfferUp were arrested in San Diego. These charges can lead to a sentence of up to one-year imprisonment or a $10,000 fine and civil enforcement actions with penalties of $5,000 per violation. To defend these charges, the sellers must demonstrate that the increased price was due to increases in materials or labor that the seller incurred.
Other States' Regulations
Not all anti-price-gouging laws are as specific as California's. Other states prohibit price increases that are "unconscionable," without an objective or numerical definition of the term. Further complicating the issue, not all states allow for the passing along of increased costs as a defense. Equally significant, some states apply the prohibition to all segments of the distribution chain. The impact of these laws with respect to COVID-19 is readily apparent: Amazon already faces a putative class action in Florida for allegedly unconscionable price increases on items such as toilet paper and hand sanitizers in the wake of the emergency declarations.
Federal Enforcement, Criminal Liability
The federal government is also actively policing a wide range of pricing issues connected to the emergency declarations. Last week Attorney General William P. Barr announced that the "Department of Justice stands ready to make sure that bad actors do not take advantage of emergency response efforts, healthcare providers, or the American people during this crucial time." The DOJ also warned that the newly formed Procurement Collusion Strike Force is on "high alert" and will not hesitate to bring criminal charges against companies and individuals who engage in price-fixing or rigging bids for much-needed health equipment.
U.S. attorney's offices across the country have followed suit warning the public of alleged fraud schemes on the heels of the emergency declarations and have vowed to investigate and prosecute such cases. To be sure, there are a number of criminal laws in the arsenal of federal prosecutors to facilitate these investigations. For example, 18 U.S.C §§ 1040 (fraud in connection with emergency benefits), 1341 (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud) all target or enhance penalties for fraud in connection with emergency relief efforts. Nor is it difficult to imagine a federal investigation stemming from unpopular price increases in the weeks and months following the COVID-19 emergency declarations.
Stay Protected: Consult With Legal Counsel
Undoubtedly, many companies in the business of distributing goods to consumers will face tremendous financial pressures as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Before substantially increasing prices on goods that might be considered necessities, companies would be well-advised to consult an attorney familiar with the patchwork of state and federal laws regulating such conduct in emergency conditions.
Robyn Crowther is co-managing partner of Steptoe & Johnson LLP's Los Angeles office. She is a trial lawyer who focuses on commercial disputes. Ashwin Ram is a partner in Steptoe's Los Angeles office who focuses on white-collar criminal defense. He previously served as an assistant US attorney in the Major Frauds Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute read'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal With GOP
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250