Almost a year into the business disruptions caused by the pandemic, businesses continue to find ways to adapt and to comply with new pricing restrictions. Some of these changes relate to additional costs that businesses may need to pass along to consumers — at least in part. Given what we have seen in recent months, it is worth revisiting how businesses can implement these surcharges with an eye towards compliance with local price gouging laws.

Whether a surcharge is permissible generally depends on a number of factors, including: the industry, how and when the surcharge was disclosed to consumers, and the amount of the surcharge.  Legal surcharges are not uncommon, though, as a spokesperson for the Michigan Attorney General’s Office recently noted, “determining if a COVID-19 surcharge is legal or illegal is ‘no quick and easy answer.’”

Industry: It is hard to imagine an industry that has not been impacted by the challenges of the past year in one way or another. Different industries may face different levels of scrutiny, however, and may bear different kinds of additional costs.  We have discussed a number of industries that have been experimenting with surcharges to offset their increased costs, and they range from health care providers to hair salons to restaurants.

Disclosure: Disclosure is often a key consideration when surcharges are being challenged or investigated. Concerns are likely to be raised—and complaints and investigations are more likely to follow—when these fees are perceived as “hidden,” as reflected in a recent Washington Post article.  In some instances, disclosing a surcharge in advance is an explicit requirement, such as for the “COVID-19 Recovery Charges” restaurants are permitted to pass on to customers in New York City.

Amount: It remains true that, to the extent surcharges are put in place to reflect cost increases, they may fall within allowable price gouging exceptions.  An important consideration is whether the contemplated surcharges are related to increase costs because of the pandemic. This could look like increased transportation costs, procurement costs, or labor costs due to new or increased expenses to cover, such as for testing, disinfection, personal protective equipment, or infection control.

Businesses that are otherwise subject to pricing restrictions under current emergency orders and the attendant regulations may be able to justify such surcharges. But that may not always be the case. Even if they bear new costs, businesses may be constrained by the language of the particular price gouging laws that apply to them. Some businesses may find themselves subject to local price gouging laws, which, e.g., bans “exorbitant” or “unconscionable” prices increases,” caps them at a specific percentage, or simply bar increases outright. The Massachusetts Attorney General, for example, issued an advisory in December with information for consumer and dental practices, noting that contracts between a consumer’s insurer and their provider may prohibit any additional fees.

The takeaway is that business often are able to legitimately recover cost increases and pass them on as surcharges or price increase, but must remain mindful of the limitations that remain in place, and maintain strong compliance measures when implementing surcharges.

*      *      *

Visit Proskauer on Price Gouging for antitrust insights on COVID-19.

*      *      *

Proskauer’s cross-disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional Coronavirus Response Team is focused on supporting and addressing client concerns. Visit our Coronavirus Resource Center for guidance on risk management measures, practical steps businesses can take and resources to help manage ongoing operations.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Christopher E. Ondeck Christopher E. Ondeck

Chris Ondeck is head of the Washington, DC office and co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group. Chris is one of the most highly rated antitrust trial lawyers in the United States. In 2023, he won the largest antitrust jury trial of the year…

Chris Ondeck is head of the Washington, DC office and co-chair of the Firm’s Antitrust Group. Chris is one of the most highly rated antitrust trial lawyers in the United States. In 2023, he won the largest antitrust jury trial of the year, and one of the largest in history, by defending Sanderson Farms as the sole non-settling defendant where the direct purchaser plaintiffs alleged $7 billion in damages. The significance of the trial victory was widely reported by Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, and other publications, calling it a “blockbuster case.” Law360 noted that Chris “blasted” the plaintiffs’ assertions at trial and called it one of the biggest trial decisions of the year. Chris and his team were named Litigators of the Week by the American Lawyer. Benchmark Litigation also shortlisted Chris for antitrust litigator of the year in 2023.

Chris is a go-to litigator for clients in high-profile antitrust matters, including AARP, Amtrak, AT&T, Butterball, Cardinal Health, Continental Resources, Daybreak Foods, Discovery, DuPont, Ocean Spray, SpaceX, Sunkist, Wayne Sanderson Farms, Welch’s, and Weyerhaeuser. He also has 30-years’ expertise with the Capper-Volstead Act’s application and interpretation for agricultural cooperatives, and serves as outside counsel to a large number of industry groups, including trade associations and cooperatives.

Chris has been recognized as a leading antitrust practitioner by Chambers, noting that clients describe him as “our primary thought partner – he’s very good at explaining the complex issues and making them easy to understand” and praising “his strong advocacy skills”; by The National Law Review as a “Go To Thought Leader”; by Acritas as a “Star” for multiple years; by Benchmark Litigation as a National Litigation Star; and by The Legal 500 United States for Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions.

Photo of John R. Ingrassia John R. Ingrassia

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating…

John is a partner at the Firm, advising on the full range of foreign investment and antitrust matters across industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services consumer goods and health care. He is the first call clients make in matters relating to competition and antitrust, CFIUS or foreign investment issues.

For more than 25 years, John has counselled businesses facing the most challenging antitrust issues and helped them stay out of the crosshairs — whether its distribution, pricing, channel management, mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, or price gouging compliance.

John’s practice focuses on the analysis and resolution of CFIUS and antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures, and the analysis and assessment of pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. He advises clients on issues related to CFIUS national security reviews, and on CFIUS submissions when non-U.S. buyers seek to acquire U.S. businesses that have national security sensitivities.  He also regularly advises clients on international antitrust issues arising in proposed acquisitions and joint ventures, including reportability under the EC Merger Regulation and numerous other foreign merger control regimes.

His knowledge, reputation and extensive experience with the legal, practical, and technical requirements of merger clearance make him a recognized authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust merger review. John is regularly invited to participate in Federal Trade Commission and bar association meetings and takes on the issues of the day.

Photo of Kelly Landers Hawthorne Kelly Landers Hawthorne

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Mass Torts & Product Liability Groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education…

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Mass Torts & Product Liability Groups. She represents clients in litigations and due diligence across a range of industries, including consumer products, life sciences, healthcare, education, hospitality, sports and entertainment.

Kelly also maintains a diverse pro bono practice. She received Proskauer’s Golden Gavel Award for excellence in pro bono work in 2019.

She is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Minding Your Business blog, where she authors articles related to price gouging issues.

Kelly is also a member of the Proskauer Women’s Alliance Steering Committee, where she serves on subcommittees focused on highlighting and providing professional development opportunities for women at the firm.

Prior to her legal career, Kelly was a Teach For America corps member and taught middle school in Washington, DC.

While at Columbia Law School, Kelly served as an articles editor of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts and interned for the Honorable Sandra Townes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.