Human Services, Labor, and Economic Development Committee 9/11/2026

Good afternoon.

The Special Human Services Labor and Economic Development Committee meeting of the Seattle City Council will now come to order.

It is 2.08 p.m.

Friday, September 11, 2026. I'm Councilmember Alexis Mercedes-Renck, chair of the committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll and let the record reflect that Councilmember Juarez and Councilmember Saka are excused.

However, Councilmember Saka should be joining us later in the meeting.

Vice Chair Foster.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Here.

Present.

Chair Rink.

Present.

Chair, there are three members present and two excused.

Thank you.

We will now move on to approval of today's agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Good afternoon and welcome everyone to today's special meeting of the Human Services Labor and Economic Development Committee.

Today's meeting will be our third meeting on the fair pricing and transparency ordinance and it is our only item on today's agenda and I'll be reserving my comments on this legislation for that discussion item.

but for now I want to restate my sincere thanks to co-sponsors on the legislation for the bill, Vice Chair Foster and Councilmember Saka.

And with that we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for today?

Currently we have six in-person speakers signed up and there are 13 remote speakers.

Thank you.

Each speaker will be given two minutes and we will start with our in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in-person and remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item you are addressing.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left on their time.

Speakers mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Thank you.

The first in-person speaker is Harper, and I'm going to read the next couple names.

After Harper, we have Olivia Lindstrom, followed by T.

Shannon, Sept Gurnaz, and then David Haynes.

Harper.

Hello, my name is Harper and Ali.

I'm from District 3, and I am here to urge the council to ban all surveillance pricing.

You have heard a lot about how we, like naive children, do not understand how this ban could hurt us.

However, we do understand.

We understand that letting them use this data to offer targeted discounts will result in the same outcome you're trying to prevent.

They can just raise the base price and offer targeted discounts.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was largely the plan from the start because people will also just pay more if they think that they're getting a discount.

My parents both work in advertising.

This is just something that I was taught growing up.

They do not offer discounts out of the goodness of their own hearts at the expense of their profits.

These are soulless corporations, and every move is calculated so that they can scrape every dollar out of our pocketbooks.

It is also worth noting that small grocery stores do not have access to this kind of unprecedented data, and they also don't have access to the levers to use it, further harming their own ability to survive, especially in this difficult market right now.

So you can either do what they're asking for or you can choose to support voters, taxpayers, and the small businesses in our city.

I also just wanted to say that in addition to using this data directly against us, they can also just use us essentially as guinea pigs to test new pricing models and also just sell that data.

I know that LG and Visio have recently been exposed for selling their TVs almost at a loss and then just making bucket loads of money off the advertiser data that these grocery stores can then buy and use against us.

Thank you.

to Harper.

Next up is Olivia.

Hi, City Council.

My name is Olivia and I'm a worker and renter living in Beacon Hill.

I'm here to urge City Council to support the Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance today.

I'll start by saying that everyone deserves to eat well and needs to be able to afford food so they can sustain themselves and their loved ones with dignity.

Surveillance pricing is a spiritually bankrupt and discriminatory practice.

It is void of the humanity each person deserves when they are trying to nourish themselves through eating.

Whether it manifests as algorithmic price fixing of rent, or in this case groceries, it relies on maximizing profits over the basic needs of people.

Corporations and businesses that use shoppers' sensitive personal data to price gouge are doing so purely for profit and greed at the expense of working class people.

We are people who have been struggling with the high costs of food, housing, health care, and transportation in a terrible job market as social services are being undercut, and while corporations and the people who lead them make record profits hand over fist.

If we are to seriously address the affordability crisis, let us start here with something that touches and impacts every other part of our lives, groceries.

Please act to protect our communities from exploitation past the fair pricing and transparency ordinance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Olivia.

Next we have T followed by Sept, David Haynes, and then Kate Rubin.

Good afternoon Chair Rink and members of the committee.

I'm T. Sandin speaking on behalf of the ACLU of Washington.

I support Council Bill 121267 because it helps build a marketplace grounded in transparency, privacy, and equity.

When we shop, we should be able to make decisions based on the product and the price, not a hidden assessment of who we are, what we need, or what we can afford.

We should be able to trust that the price we see isn't being quietly personalized based on information collected on us.

Surveillance pricing is a privacy issue.

It uses information about a person, such as their behavior, location, shopping history, to determine the price that that person sees.

It also incentivizes businesses to collect even more personal information about us.

This is also an equity issue.

Surveillance pricing especially harms people who are already financially vulnerable by weaponizing their personal data to maximize the price they're forced to pay for basic necessities.

Because these systems rely on extensive data collection and profiling, they may also reproduce or amplify existing inequities, even when protected characteristics aren't used directly.

Importantly, this ordinance protects legitimate sales, coupons, and loyalty discounts.

It doesn't prevent businesses from offering transparent discounts or awarding customers.

It guards against something fundamentally different, individualized pricing based on being tracked and profiled.

I urge you to pass a strong version of this ordinance so that we can build a marketplace where people can participate with confidence that they're being treated fairly and not one where they're profiled for what they will pay.

Thank you.

Thank you, T.

Next, we have Sept, followed by David.

Hello, members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Sept.

I use they, them pronouns, and I'm the advocacy and program manager at Queer Power Alliance.

We work to build collective power for queer liberation, and as such, we are asking that you please advance a strong ordinance against surveillance-based individualized pricing to the full council.

People should not be forced to pay different prices for the same goods because some algorithm analyzed their personal information.

LGBTQIA plus people already experience disproportionate financial burdens, and therefore we spend a larger portion of our incomes on necessities like food, housing, and transportation.

The majority of our community has already experienced having to go without basic necessities like healthcare or food in order to stay housed.

We do our best to keep each other safe in a political climate that is consistently threatening our very existence, and allowing companies to unfairly raise prices will further destabilize our community.

In addition, many of our community members, especially trans folks and people of color, are increasingly concerned with privacy due to our current national administration.

Allowing companies to track our location, device type, browsing history, income indicators, and past purchases puts us at greater risk of gender and racial-based violence.

We're counting on you to protect our privacy and our ability to survive and thrive in the city.

So please advance a strong ordinance prohibiting surveillance-based pricing to the full council for review.

Thank you again.

Thank you, Seth.

Next we have David Haynes, followed by Kate Rubin.

We have an ongoing homeless crisis and a lack of leadership to reimagine regional response with state and federal resources that are already available that we have not used that could stand up authorized encampments within three to ten days with the full first world quality utilities with the noble use of the National Guard.

That's free labor.

and I don't see any effort from council to redevelop and tear down all those motels that have already been used for sexploitation.

The thing is, it's like the Human Services Department seems to be investing in run interference for repeat offending criminals that's undermining the innocent homeless that are being wrongly and unnecessarily victimized because they're not being helped.

but you all are out there trying to find the most self-destructive, most profitable people to gouge Medicaid who are like all fucked up on drugs, excuse my French, but you all are not making an effort to shut down the drug pushers.

You keep seeming like sympathizing with them like it's a poverty crime.

But I actually came down here today because The workers need a three and a half day work week, seven day pay and take it from the non-working shareholder middleman every three months that are recording record profits from Wall Street while the workers are forced to live paycheck to paycheck.

And we need to renegotiate the perception of value in the property that John Wilson inflated that the bosses are using as the excuse to turn against the workers to debt service the police state economy of a bunch of non-working shareholder middlemen who own all this ill-suited flawed floor plans in the real estate that are ripping off the small businesses that you all keep cheerleading, but you're not representing in good faith.

protecting them from the abuse of the banks and the artificially inflated property values that cheat the consumer and the business out of proper floor spaces for the grace of enjoying yourself without your personal space being interrupted.

But we could renegotiate the rent, the lease, and doll down.

But the thing is, we need a farmer's market co-op with permanent shelf space.

Next, we have Kate Rubin.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Kate Rubin and I'm a renter in District 2. I'm speaking today on behalf of Be Seattle and the Seattle Renters Commission in support of the Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance.

renters already spend an enormous share of our incomes just keeping a roof over our heads.

For many of us, there isn't much left over to absorb higher prices for groceries and other necessities, and we may not have the time, transportation, or options to shop nearby.

Our purchase history, location, browsing behavior, or other personal information should never tell an algorithm that we can be charged more than the person standing next to us for the exact same product.

Speaking as an individual, I was diagnosed with celiac disease last year, and I've struggled immensely with reading every single label and completely changing my diet.

My grocery bills have gone up significantly, and I now have far fewer choices about what I can buy.

There is something deeply insidious about an algorithm learning that I have fewer choices and using that vulnerability to extract more money from me.

Thank you to Councilmembers Foster and Rink for your hard work on this, and thank you to Councilmember Saka for co-sponsoring.

Please pass a strong ordinance without any weakening loopholes to the full Council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kate.

Next we have Sean Empley.

And followed by Sean, I see we have signed up Pastor Joe Sheeran, followed by Julie Bojana, and then John Pincus.

Sean.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Sean Embley.

I'm the Secretary Treasurer of U of CW 3000. Our union represents over 55,000 workers all across this region, which includes thousands of grocery workers right here in King County in Seattle.

Our members see every day the impact that grocery prices have on working families.

They see customers calculating what they can afford, putting items back, and making difficult choices about basic necessities.

Technology should not make that situation worse by allowing a company to use personal information such as purchase history, location, browser behavior, or other characteristics to determine the price they pay.

When prices become less transparent and customers can't understand why they're being charged a particular amount, workers answer for those decisions made by corporate algorithms that they have no control over.

This ordinance does nothing to prohibit ordinary sales, coupons, or loyalty discounts offered on equal terms.

It says that discounts should be based off the offer, not on what an algorithm believes it knows about the individual shopper.

Seattle has an opportunity to establish this protection before surveillance-based pricing becomes normalized.

Customers should be able to walk into a grocery store knowing that the price they see is the price they will pay, not a price calculated from their personal data.

On behalf of you, CW 3000, and our members, I urge you to advance the strongest possible ordinance to the full council.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Pastor Joe Sheeran, followed by Julie Briana, John Pancus, Maya Morales, and then Masai.

Great.

Pastor Joe.

Howdy, thanks for this time to speak with you all.

I am Pastor Joe Sheeran of Woodland Park Presbyterian Church, which is in District 6, although I live in District 7. We have members from around the city.

We are part of the Sound Alliance.

I'm here also in support of our friends and allies in UFCW 3000 who have taken the lead on this campaign against surveillance pricing.

Many members of my congregation have experienced food insecurity at different times in their life.

And today, one of our strongest ministries is caring for the hungry in our neighborhood.

We have a food pantry that we keep on the street.

It is stocked every day with food, and the food runs out as fast as it can.

Surveillance pricing hits the people that rely on that pantry.

It hits the people that stock that pantry.

And it hits the people who remember a time when they couldn't feed their families reliably.

Please listen to our friends here today about why this is something we do not need in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Julie.

Hello.

Let me go with this one.

My name's Julie Buona.

I'm the executive director of the Washington Fair Trade Coalition, which is a coalition of 70 labor unions, environmental organizations, migrant defense, tech privacy, and other organizations committed to holding corporations accountable at every level of governance.

I'm here to talk about the Fair Pricing Ordinance.

Thank you so much to Council Members Foster and Ring for all your hard work on this and Council Member Saka for co-sponsoring.

You know, I urge folks to pass the strongest version of this bill out of committee without any corporate loopholes.

In my work, whether I'm at a local union meeting, a picket line, a migrant defense rally, folks are really fearful about these algorithms that make decisions impacting their day-to-day lives with little to no oversight, human oversight.

whether it's a hiring or firing decision at work, whether it's a housing decision, the way that algorithms have been used to illegally track down and detain our migrant neighbors, and now algorithms sourcing our data are deciding whether or not working families can put food on the table, which is unacceptable.

I think it's important not to take corporate lobbyists at their word.

The idea that they actually care about whether or not working families can put food on the table is a bit absurd.

They care about their shareholder profits, and if they really cared about working people and working families, maybe they would pay workers a living wage.

Maybe they would stop closing grocery stores and communities that rely on them.

So I think we should be really honest about their motive, which is shareholder profit.

And so again, thank you, and I hope to see the strongest version of this bill come out of committee.

Thank you, Julie.

Next up, we have John, followed by Maya Benamasai.

Thank you.

I'm John Pincus from the Nexus of Privacy.

You're in support of the Ordinance Demand Surveillance Pricing.

Thank you, Council Members Rink and Foster, and for all your work in bringing this really important bill into Council Member Saka as well for co-sponsoring.

So now please build on this excellent foundation by passing as strong a bill as possible out of committee today.

And don't give in to industry lobbyists' threats of of unintended consequences in their mass texting campaigns to try to spread disinformation.

They want loopholes, and as Julie said, they're very sneaky about proposing plausible-looking clarifications that really give them the ability to use this personal information in all kinds of underhanded ways.

I like to do mass text in campaigns, for example.

And I talked last time about the importance of a strong private right of action.

We don't want to let them break the law and then just think they can probably get away with it or pay the fines as a cost of doing business.

The ordinance very rightly exempt small businesses They're not even covered by this ordinance.

It only applies to large retailers and delivery chains.

And when the big guys break the law, we really need meaningful accountability.

So please pass a strong version of this bill out of committee as possible and then defend it firmly as it reaches the full council.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

Next we have Maya, followed by Masai, and then Nicole Boussaka.

Hey, everyone.

For the record, Maya Morales, founder of Washington People's Privacy.

I think so many amazing things have already been said by workers, by everyday folks who are impacted, by the price of groceries, and by big tech teaming up with big grocery.

to really become sort of predatory and kind of be stalking people down in the aisles.

Are you buying this kind of bread?

Are you buying that kind of snack?

This much toilet paper per week?

It's becoming really over the top exactly how invasively surveilled we are in every aspect of our lives.

It really does feel like, is it asking too much to just go to the grocery store?

and not be invasively tracked.

And so I want to appreciate the mayor's office and her staff.

I want to appreciate main sponsor, Council Member Rink.

I want to appreciate sponsor Dion Foster, Council Member Foster.

Council Member Saka and as well conversations with Council Member Hollingsworth.

I know you all are deeply engaged in trying to do the best for Seattle and I just really, really appreciate this work.

I know it's not easy and I also wanna echo what previous speakers have said.

It's really, really hard to stand up to billionaires.

I know that, but we all have your back and we all believe that you can get this done and are really, really proud of this work.

I also wanna just encourage you to stay strong and keep these positions.

Private right of action is extremely important.

As has been mentioned, it's literally one of the ways that we can actually make sure that these big corporations do have to follow the law and otherwise they get away with breaking laws all the time.

And the people who suffer the most from that are folks who are directly impacted the most and who have the least ability to get that enforcement done.

And so it's really, really important that we keep that strong.

And I also want to just, you know, if the general rest of the other, the council members .

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Maya.

On my side.

Well, good afternoon and Bolivinaca council members.

My name is Amasai Cheki and I'm the deputy director at Lavender Rights Project and Lavender Rights really supports Seattle's position.

Proposed ban on silver and sink pricing, this builds on to our advocacy on this issue at the state legislature.

Our work really centers black, trans, and gender diverse communities and addresses the conditions that undermine our safety and ability to thrive.

And so access to affordable food, economic stability, and privacy is part of that work.

Surveillance pricing allows businesses to use personal information to determine what individual shoppers pay.

Our concern is that these practices can deepen the existing inequalities by turning information about people's circumstances into opportunities to change, to even charge them more.

And so for black trans people and communities that are facing discrimination in employment and housing and the cost of basic necessities, they matter.

and when someone has limited income or transportation or simply shopping somewhere else may not be an option.

And so we also want to address the suggestion that banning surveillance pricing would harm LGBTQI communities.

Our communities include workers, tenants, and families who deserve affordable groceries and protection from economic exploitation.

their needs must be central into this conversation and so that the proposal preserves legitimate coupons and transparent discounts while establishing boundaries against pricing upon based on personal data and so positions like this for Lavender Rights Project is very clear that protecting our communities include protecting their ability to meet basic needs with a lot of dignity and that nobody should have to surrender their privacy to afford food.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amasai.

Next we have Nicole Boussaka and then followed by Nicole we have two final in-person speakers.

I'm just going to read them into the record so they're ready.

Keong Barn and then Althea Lozano.

Hello, I am Nicole Busacca.

I live in Beacon Hill.

I am a member of Sound Alliance and I'm here to speak up for an issue that impacts myself and my loved ones as well as my friends at UFC W3000 and everyone in this room.

I grew up with my mom carefully planning meals to be $2 per serving, and I can't imagine the anxiety she would have felt if the ingredients ended up being even a few cents more expensive than she was anticipating when she made her list.

She worked three jobs and would not have had time to visit multiple stores in order to find better prices.

Surveillance pricing particularly impacts those who are already economically vulnerable, those who are disabled and limited in mobility or energy, or those who do not own a car.

Everything's getting way more expensive now.

I don't want to be in the position that my mom was in when I was growing up, carrying all that anxiety, as everything is more and more pricey.

I'm also on staff at Wallingford Presbyterian Church, and I'm here because my faith teaches me that every person is precious, that their access to basic needs such as food should be protected diligently, and that this planet should be protected through responsible boundaries on technologies that contribute to climate change.

I want to keep living in Seattle.

I love it here.

I want to build my life here.

It's getting pricier all the time, and this would only contribute to that more.

And it's incredibly hard these days to maintain our privacy.

Our world keeps functioning more and more virtually.

We make choices that we don't understand, and we can't take it back.

We can't take information back.

And so we need you, our representatives, to help protect us from surveillance that increasingly is being used against us.

So I ask that you would please advance this ordinance in its strongest form to the full council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nicole.

Next up, we have Kiong.

Hi, I'm a concerned citizen.

I work at a grocery store.

And we already kind of have this surveillance pricing.

It's called digital app.

Some people who don't have digital phones cannot use it.

They can't get the special price.

People with language barriers don't understand.

They have to download an app.

and click on it.

And this information is being given and being sold to marketers.

That's exactly what all these grocery stores are doing.

And I see my customers that come in and their prices are ridiculous.

Three bags of items is over $100.

How can anyone afford groceries nowadays?

And it's even gonna get worse.

So we need you guys to please, please be with your citizens and please pass this ordinance and don't let the corporations get away with what they've already getting away with.

Maybe pass an ordinance to not have digital apps anywhere.

Thank you, Kian.

And our last in-person speaker is Althea.

Hello, can you hear me okay?

You gotta really eat the mic.

Like that?

Yes, perfect.

Hi, my name is Althea Lazaro.

I am a proud member of the American Federation of Teachers Local 1789, and I'm here with Sound Alliance to speak against surveillance pricing.

I'm a librarian at a local community college here in Seattle, and I would like to speak very briefly in my professional capacity.

Librarians all over the country have fought against surveillance and the collection of citizen data for decades because we have found that surveillance almost always equals discrimination.

I see this every day in the lives of my students who too often have to give up their personal information to access essential resources and services.

As many of you already agree, sneaky surveillance, especially about something as basic and necessary as groceries, is completely unacceptable.

I would like to urge you to pass the strongest version of this bill with no loopholes, and I appreciate the Council's work on this issue to protect our community from this predation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Althea.

That was our last in-person speaker, so now we're going to go to our remote speakers.

The first remote speaker is Robin Turner.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt.

You've been unmuted.

Hi, my name is Robin Turner and I'm a member of the Washington Working Families Party and I'm here to talk about surveillance pricing.

When I go to the grocery store to buy eggs, I want to be able to compare prices.

I want fair and transparent pricing.

I do not want the store to access my price fit and personal data for setting the price of a carton of eggs.

I live paycheck to paycheck and do not have the flexibility to absorb unpredictable prices or shop around for a better deal.

I have limited grocery options in my neighborhood because I don't own a car and I work full-time.

Surveillance pricing also makes it harder for working families to budget, let alone comparison shops.

have no idea if we're being charged a different price than our neighbor.

Prices should not be determined by internet searches, our location, our income, or our online behavior.

Council members, you have an opportunity to protect working families from this emerging form of personalized price gouging and preventing corporations from squeezing working families to lose their profits.

I will also note that the proposed ordinance protects legitimate sales, coupons, and loyalty discounts.

I say hands off my personal data, and let's be clear, surveillance pricing and dynamic pricing practices are not just a threat to affordability, but also a threat to our privacy.

With that data, companies all identify the highest price each customer is willing to pay and not charge a penny less.

and in many cases, the corporations, including grocery chains, are selling our personal data to data brokers, others, resulting in large profits.

Vote yes on this ordinance on fair and transparent pricing without corporate loopholes.

Thank you for your time.

Our next online speaker.

Our next online speaker is Marcos Juanles.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

For the record, my name is Marcos Juanles, founder and president of the Latino Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

I come before you in opposition to the proposed pricing ordinance, Chair Rick, and members of the committee.

On behalf of our business collective, composed of more than 2,000 members, professionals, and businesses, which include small family-owned restaurants and grocery stores, I have to talk about affordability.

Affordability is a persistent concern for businesses and their customers.

For example, real estate is roughly 106 to 112 percent more expensive in Seattle than the national average.

Coupons, rewards, programs, and fuel discounts aid against our affordability crisis.

No matter what all previous speakers have said, these benefits will go away under the ordinance before you.

The ordinance will drive food and goods prices up instead of bringing them down.

This has been historically proven every time government tries to regulate prices or market procedures through regulation.

It doesn't work.

Businesses need certainty.

The language of this ordinance puts businesses in great risk for civil litigation which directly adds to the cost of doing business here.

I just finished a forum with the major and the city officials which expressed its grave concern over businesses leaving Seattle for other cities because of high cost of doing business here.

This ordinance will contribute to promote businesses and their jobs to abandon Seattle.

On behalf of our members and their Seattle customers, we firmly ask you to don't approve this ordinance, which will increase costs.

We need to make Seattle more affordable, not less.

The city has been taking every step to drive business and prosperity away.

We understand the rhetoric of invasion of privacy, but this is the wrong way of trying to do a good thing.

Thank you.

Our next online speaker is Amanda Dalton.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt.

You've been unmuted.

We are ranked and members of the committee.

Amanda Dalton on behalf of the Northwest Crosion Retail Association.

We support prohibiting the use of personal information to increase prices.

I want to briefly address the amendments before you.

You have my more detailed comments via an email sent yesterday due to limited time today.

First, we appreciate Councilmember Foster's Amendment 1 and urge your support.

Removing intangible harm creates a clearer and more meaningful threshold for establishing harm.

We would encourage one additional change to ensure the private right of action is also tied directly to that tangible harm standard.

I want to be clear that this amendment alone does not resolve the broader litigation exposure concerns created by the private right of action.

We have greater concerns with Amendment 2 and this may be because we are seeing it for the first time and haven't had the benefit of discussion.

But we do believe at a minimum the way it is drafted creates significant uncertainty around whether electronic shelf labels can legally be used.

As drafted, the amendment ties whether an electronic shelf label can be used to whether a retailer is prohibited from modifying a particular price under the ordinance.

But there are still unresolved questions about which discounts, promotions and savings are permitted.

This creates a very practical problem.

Retailers cannot realistically use electronic shelf labels on some products, but not on others, based on whether a particular price or promotion might fall within the ordinance prohibition.

That may not be the intent, but we believe it is a real risk under the languages written.

Finally, I want to emphasize why we continue to ask counsel to get this right before it takes effect.

No state law like this has taken effect yet.

Maryland will be the first next month, followed by New Jersey next year, so there is no real world experience yet showing how these laws will affect discounts, promotions, or other retailer operations.

And just weeks ago, California declined to advance a similar proposal after lawmakers raised concerns about potential impacts on consumer discounts.

Seattle doesn't need to follow California, but it should take seriously the concerns that have caused other policymakers to proceed carefully.

We support protecting consumers from having their personal information used to charge them more.

But when the unintended consequence could be taking discounts and savings away from those same consumers, getting the language right before the measure takes effects matters.

Thank you.

Our next online speaker is Amy Harris.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Chair of Mercedes Rank and members of the committee, my name is Amy Harris testifying on behalf of the Washington Technology Industry Association.

representing nearly 800 tech companies in Seattle and across Washington State.

I'm here to reiterate again our ongoing concerns about the proposed pricing ordinance and its impact on consumers and businesses in Seattle.

This ordinance would harm the very programs consumers rely on to maximize their shopping power with local retailers and grocers.

As you are all well aware, the affordability crisis in Seattle continues to put pressure on families and individuals, particularly those living on fixed income.

This ordinance would add to those financial burdens by removing such things as fuel discounts, digital coupons, personalized promotionals, and rewards to save money.

The carve-outs in the ordinance are so narrow they effectively prohibit or discourage these much-loved consumer programs.

As a result, shoppers would face a shortage of critical money-saving options.

Seattle consumers are already looking for any way possible to save money.

It is already the most expensive city in the country for delivery.

Consumers need more tools to make ends meet.

Physicists need programs that engage customers and encourage them to shop in their stores.

This ordinance is bad for both.

Thank you for your time today.

Before going to our next online speaker, I wanna take a moment to recognize that Council Member Saka has joined the meeting virtually.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Our next online person is Lars Erickson.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Good afternoon, Chair Rink and members of the committee.

My name is Lars Erickson and I'm representing the 2,600 members of the Seattle Metro Chamber.

We support the goal of preventing unfair pricing practices and ensuring consumers are protected from discriminatory uses of personal data.

At the same time, we remain concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences for the coupons, reward programs, loyalty benefits, and other discounts that many Seattle families rely on.

We appreciate Amendment 1 as a positive step toward a more balanced enforcement framework requiring a showing of tangible harm helps focus enforcement on real consumer injury.

However, we continue to have concerns about the broader private right of action and the potential for litigation over technical compliance issues rather than actual consumer harm.

While we appreciate efforts to improve the bill, we believe additional work remains.

There are still important questions about how the exceptions will function in practice and whether consumers could ultimately lose access to saving opportunities.

We respectfully urge the committee to allow additional time for stakeholders, retailers, consumer advocates in the city to continue these discussions and refine the policy.

We share the goal of protecting consumers, but it is important that we get this right and avoid unintended consequences for Seattle families.

Thank you for your consideration.

The next online speaker is Mike Sotelo.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Actually, it looks like Mike Sotelo has logged out.

So our next speaker is Gabriel Newman.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Good afternoon, Chair Rink and members of the committee.

My name is Gabriel Newman.

I'm testifying on behalf of GSBA.

We're a statewide LGBTQ and allied business association.

I'm here to speak on the Fair Pricing Ordinance.

Thank you for your commitment to finding innovative ways to meet the moment and address Seattle's affordability crisis.

We support the effort to limit the ability for grocers to algorithmically raise prices against consumers.

We also want to urge you to preserve the ability for companies and grocers to bring promotions to their users.

Raising prices on ordinary items in order to advertise discounts on them is not okay.

However, giving personalized discounts is a benefit that can provide cost-saving measures that consumers rely on to stretch their budgets.

Moreover, restricting personalized discounts can uniquely impact small businesses.

Small and local businesses work with delivery platforms and large retailers to offer targeted promotions to attract new customers and compete with larger brands.

Independent restaurants can also use platform-funded, personalized promotions to reach new regulars.

This can be an essential way for a small business in Washington or Seattle to compete against larger, more ingrained products.

These are essential services that small businesses rely on in order to reach consumers and compete with other established brands.

As a small startup, a business may not have enough inventory or capital to offer discounts to everyone on an app, so they can sustain an offer aimed at a smaller group of folks who would be more likely to use it.

We want to ensure structures like this remain in place in which small businesses can use to expand their consumer base.

I'm confident that the City Council can work this legislation along with stakeholders to provide essential consumer protections while also ensuring folks continue to have access to the discounts they rely on as they continue to navigate the affordability crisis.

Thank you for thinking creatively to tackle these future forward issues.

Our next online speaker is Drea McKenna.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt you've been unmuted.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Drea McKenna and I am here on behalf of Ibotta.

First, I want to share that we support the ordinance's intent to protect consumers from predatory pricing.

However, the current language unintentionally jeopardizes popular savings programs, and we respectfully request that you consider amendments to protect those programs.

Ibotta is a digital discounts and promotional marketing company.

We offer discounts and cash back on everyday items by working with brands and manufacturers to develop discounts that are available through Ibotta's free app and participating retailers' loyalty and shopping programs.

This is a voluntary opt-in program.

For example, imagine a startup beverage brand is introducing a new flavor and wants to incentivize consumers to try it.

Ibotta would work with that brand to provide a cashback offer through our app and our partner retailers' platforms.

The brand funds the discount, the retailer publishes the offer, and the consumer earns cashback as a result of trying that new beverage.

Importantly, Ibotta cannot and does not set or influence the underlying retail price of that good.

Our role is to provide a manufacturer-funded discount that only lowers what a consumer ultimately pays.

This program is pretty popular.

In the last 10 years, over 170,000 Seattle residents have used Ibotta to earn over $3.3 million in savings.

For Seattle families facing higher grocery and household costs, these savings are significant.

As drafted, the ordinance would restrict the ability for third-party companies like Ibotta to offer discounts to consumers, and we respectfully request Council to preserve access to these important savings tools.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

The next online speaker is Steph Haggerty.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt.

You've been unmuted.

Hi there, can you hear me?

Yeah, we got you.

Thank you.

Hi there, my name is Steph Haggerty.

I'm a worker in District 4 and a frequent grocery shopper.

I just want to echo Minnie here today that I'm speaking in support of the Fair and Transparent Pricing Ordinance.

I'll keep this pretty short given a lot of the great points already shared today.

Please prioritize listening to us Seattle residents, your voters and constituents regarding banning surveillance pricing and groceries and please be cautious about how you interpret big grocery and technology lobbyists' feedback and consider the biases they may hold regarding this issue.

Food personally takes up a huge part of my living expenses as a renter after housing.

We all deserve an equal chance to be able to make it in this town with food on the table.

The prices of an item should be the same for everyone.

When we shop, especially for essential items like groceries, that's basic fairness.

and the big box grocery chain shouldn't be allowed to use our data to exploit the cost of basic goods to live.

So I think this one's pretty simple.

Please pass this ordinance without weakening it and also urge you to consider supporting future work for establishing public grocery stores as well.

Thank you.

Our next online speaker is Mr. Alvarez.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt.

You've been unmuted.

Thank you.

Business groups are liars and fear-mongering, made even worse because they overwork and underpay employees in the grocery industry.

The corporate loopholes of amendments one and three are not acceptable.

Removing intangible harm from the legislation would dampen consumer rights.

Price manipulation based on personal data is not limited to paying more for items.

It is also the loss in confidence and fairness that consumers in our city depend on.

These might be considered intangible at first.

However, shoppers must have the right to seek punitive judgment against multi-million dollar corporations.

Amendment 2 would let them off the hook, giving companies a chance to push the limits of price surveillance.

If you include these amendments, you are preempting the rights of consumers and opening the way for corporations to find more devious ways to take money from all of us.

Don't give in to these corporations.

Thank you all and have a great day.

Our next online speaker is John Engber.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Chair Rank and distinguished members of the committee, I'm John Engber speaking today on behalf of the Washington Retail Association.

Like UFCW 3000 and many speakers today, Our members support the goal of the fair pricing legislation, a ban on algorithmic price discrimination.

People should not pay more for their groceries based on their personal data.

Unfortunately, this legislation does more than ban pricing discrimination.

It also creates real risks that could cost Seattle consumers tens of millions of dollars annually.

Why?

because it could mean the end of coupons, discounts, and loyalty programs, including fuel rewards.

Legislation could create other risks by preventing the use of surveillance cameras that grocers desperately need to combat organized retail crime and violence.

Our state has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in organized retail crime.

And a recent study of 2,500 frontline retail workers found that customer aggression is so severe that two-thirds have considered leaving their jobs, and they report that it's only getting worse.

We have sincerely appreciated the opportunity to work on this legislation with you, Chair Rink, and with the Mayor's Office.

We still have time to improve this legislation so that it fully protects consumers and grocery workers.

Thank you.

Our final online speaker is Patrick White.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you've been unmuted.

Hi, I'm Patrick, resident of District 2, speaking in favor of the Fair Pricing Initiative and against proposed amendments.

Let's start by unpacking some of the lies of the big retailers we've been spamming on our phones with.

This bill will not make anything more expensive, and if they cared about that, they would stop gouging us.

It will not ban rewards programs and it will not ban coupons, though yes, your mailbox can still be plugged with them.

What it will do is stop them from charging you a higher price than someone else.

Imagine you're at checkout and the manager comes up and tells you, your file says you're willing to pay more for this, so give me an extra dollar per item.

First of all, what file?

Second of all, no, I will not give you an extra dollar.

I am leaving.

They would be out of business so quickly if they were that upfront about it.

So that's why they hide it behind the computer.

But what about that file?

They buy your data from data brokers and that's how they want to decide what price to charge you.

And then they use your rewards account to link that supposedly anonymized data to you.

So actually this bill would be better if it did get rid of rewards programs.

They know way more about you than they should.

For example, they do not need to know that I accidentally liked someone's photo from five years ago and deleted my account.

They do not need to know that it took me four searches to figure out how to screen share on FaceTime before giving up and trying a different platform.

They do not need to know where I was when I ignored a phone call that they didn't want to answer.

Heck, they shouldn't even know my name.

It's a grocery store.

I buy food and that is it.

That is all they should know.

Pass this bill with no amendments.

Thank you.

We had one additional public commenter sign in.

So Magdalene Ware, please press star six when you hear the prompt you've been unmuted and this is our last online speaker that is registered.

Hello, am I audible?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Thank you, counsel, for taking my public commentary.

I'm calling in today to inform you of something that you might not know, which is that transphobia does not exist to police and destroy trans people.

It exists to police and punish sick people.

We are the evidence of what happens when you step out of line.

Our suicide, the rate that we are murdered, how we are socially excluded, and how even when we are murdered, we cannot even be granted the decency of admitting when a hate crime is a hate crime.

Juniper Blessing was stabbed 40 times, Counsel.

This is commiserate with other hate crime murderers and other crimes.

It does not matter that her murderer had stalked other women.

She murdered her.

And he murdered her as a woman.

So even if it's not trans phobia, it is still femicide.

It is still a misogynistic hate crime.

And it should be treated that way.

but instead he has been given every single comfort while the murder victim and her family have been given every single excuse.

What happened to Juniper Blessing is something that could have and should have been prevented.

You can prevent the next by taking a firmer stand against transphobia and prosecuting murderers of trans people to the fullest extent of the law.

especially when black and brown bodies are being murdered.

There are too many black and indigenous trans women who are murdered in the city and whose murderers are never found.

Please take this epidemic of trans side and femicide seriously and call a hate crime a hate crime.

That was our final.

There are no additional registered speakers.

Thank you, clerk.

And with that, we will now move on to our items of business.

And I wanna thank everyone again for coming out and providing public comment today.

I appreciate your engagement with the work of this committee.

And with that, we will move on to our first and only item of business for today.

Will the clerk please read item one to the record?

Item one, an ordinance relating to prohibiting algorithmic based price discrimination requiring covered retailer disclosures to consumers requiring that covered retailers retain certain records and adding a new chapter 7.35 to the Seattle Municipal Code briefing discussion and possible votes.

Right, everyone.

We're here today as our last committee hearing on the Fair Pricing and Transparency Ordinance, co-created by my office and the Office of the Mayor in collaboration and co-sponsored by Vice Chair Foster and Councilmember Saka.

Now, after months of deep engagement with privacy and consumer protection efforts, community advocates, our labor partners, and yes, the grocery industry associations and lobbyists, we crafted this bill to put guardrails on one specific practice.

Large grocery and delivery companies setting, altering, or manipulating the price of goods based on monitoring, tracking, or automated analysis of our behavior, location, demographics, biometric data, or other personal information, including personal information acquired from a third party, or personal information that is gathered, purchased, or collected by these companies using electronic surveillance technology.

There's a lot of legalese in this bill.

And I think some folks are wondering, what does this mean for everyday shoppers?

And it's basically this.

If a national grocery chain wants to send Jane Q public and all of us with club cards a coupon for ice cream because it's summer and it's hot and We all deserve it.

That's fine under this legislation.

But if they're sending just one coupon for ice cream only to Jane right now because they know she's online and they bought information that she gets paid on Friday and it's her kid's birthday on Saturday and she's been Googling cake recipes all week, that's not okay.

It's not fair to have different prices for each shopper based on their personal data.

It's certainly not transparent on how they set Jane's special price, let alone how they got all of that personal information from her.

And just as easily as they could offer a discount on that ice cream for Jane because they know it's her kid's birthday, they could raise the price on NyQuil because they saw she was Googling kids' flu symptoms.

So if we pass this bill, it'll be illegal for these corporations to use whatever AI algorithms suck up our own personal data to get us to buy something or pay more for it than our neighbor.

The simplest way to think about this ordinance is this, the price of the groceries should be based on the product, not on who the shopper is or what an algorithm thinks that shopper will pay.

These large national chains and third-party delivery systems are already making billions, selling the data we willingly gave them when we joined their loyalty card programs and downloaded their apps.

They're buying even more data about us from data brokers.

They're investing millions of dollars into AI for AI-driven pricing, inventory management, and promotion schemes.

They're not gathering our data or investing it in these technologies just to give us discounts.

So, colleagues, we should today pass a strong enforceable policy without loopholes that let companies call individualized prices a loyal BT benefit or discount.

And I'm really proud of the strong coalition of support behind this policy, and we heard from a number of these partners today.

from Washington People's Privacy, the ACLU, the Nexus of Privacy, Consumer Reports, Tech Equity Action, Transit Riders Union, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, APRI Seattle, 350 Seattle, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Working Families Party, Food and Water Watch, Lavender Rights Project, Washington AI Resistance, IAM 751, People Power Washington, Solidarity Budget, Communities Not Cameras, Stop Surveillance City, Be Seattle, Seattle Indivisible, Working Washington, Faith Action Network, SCIU 775, Queen Anne Baptist Church, Faith Action Network, One America, Woodland Park Presbyterian Church, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and MLK Labor.

That is a strong coalition of support behind this policy.

And I am proud that we'll be taking up action on this today.

All right, and with that, let's get the show on the road because we have our incredible central staff at the table to brief us today on three amendments.

We will be discussing these before voting on them, and then we'll take up the underlying legislation.

So central staff, thank you for joining us at the table.

If you can introduce yourselves for the record before we get started, that would be fantastic.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Rink, members of the committee.

For the record, Tommaso Johnson, Council Central Staff.

Jasmine Marwaja, Council Central Staff.

Wonderful, and I believe I will turn it first to Councilmember, I believe I will actually be moving the bill, pardon me, before we get into the discussion.

We'll be moving the bill.

So I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121267. Is there a second?

Second.

It is moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill, and we will now consider Amendment 1. Councilmember Foster, you are recognized to move Amendment 1.

Thank you so much, Chair Rink.

And first, let me just start off by saying and expressing my appreciation for you and your leadership and the work that you've done on this really important bill.

It has just been, is the phrase bar none?

Par none?

But I really appreciate that.

And I also want to express my gratitude to the mayor's office and the staff in the mayor's office who have been working on this for a long time, as well as to all of the advocates who have been here It feels like ages ago, because we were on recess, but I appreciate your leadership, your organizing, because this bill is really important for Seattleites, for Seattle families.

Before I speak to the amendment concept, I'll just say, I had a chance to have dinner with friends recently, and a lot of my friends are parents of young kids.

And we were talking about this bill, and one of the things that came across so clearly was this concern, and you already spoke to it, concept that you could be charged a different price for NyQuil because your kid really needs it, right?

You could be in the middle of the night looking something up and deal with surveillance pricing or surge pricing the same way we deal with that on other goods, and that just should never be the case.

So I'm incredibly proud to sponsor this bill.

I think it's going to be very, very meaningful for Seattle residents.

I also want to express my gratitude to the folks who sent some messages and emails and reached out to our office earlier today around this amendment concept that I'm bringing forward.

It's really important to me as a sponsor of this bill to both have transparency and collaboration because this work couldn't be more important or more meaningful for Seattle families.

So I am going to ask central staff to brief us on this bill today, but I am going to hold this and bring this amendment back to full council for a vote because I do want to make sure we have that deep engagement and that clarity about what this amendment means.

And my goal here really is to ensure that we have that when we get into implementation.

because a good bill, we should know exactly how it's going to be implemented.

We should know exactly who's going to be covered.

And that predictability and that transparency, from my perspective, is key to making really good policy in addition to making sure we're centering the families like my friends.

So I just wanted to express that.

I'm really excited about this bill and looking forward to the discussion today.

And I'll hand it over to central staff to brief the amendment.

Thank you once again, Tommaso Johnson, Council Central Staff, for the record.

Amendment 1 to this legislation, sponsored by Council Member Foster, removing intangible harm.

This amendment amends the definition of aggrieved party, which is a term included in the bill, to remove the words or intangible from that definition.

This change would limit the potential damages available to persons who file lawsuits under the private right of action in the bill, and it would limit the damage amounts to injuries based on tangible harms.

The current bill language requires that a person allege an injury under the Private Rat of Action, but contemplates award of damages based on both tangible or intangible harm suffered by the, quote-unquote, aggrieved party.

This term, aggrieved party, is also used in the other enforcement section of the bill that relates to the city attorney's office.

And it would remove, similarly, changing the definition of aggrieved party to remove intangible harm would also affect the damages available under enforcement actions undertaken by the city attorney.

Councilmember Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that walkthrough, Tommaso.

One thing I wanted to ask you to speak to when it comes to the difference between tangible and intangible is as we, and again, we're not voting on this today, but I think it's important to get the clarity into this discussion, is the sort of meaningful difference between the two, it's a two-letter difference, but if you can explain the sort of difference between application there.

Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

Generally speaking, tangible harms are most frequently economic harms.

They would likely be in this context.

They're observable, verifiable, sort of definable on a more granular level.

Intangible harms, generally speaking, are psychological harms, harms that can't be quantified quite as easily, not directly observable.

So it's not necessarily easy to predict definitively what would be alleged as an intangible harm under this statute.

This would be a new statute.

But generally speaking, as I said, intangible harms in the context of civil lawsuits, generally speaking, can involve emotional damages, pain and suffering.

Some statutes, intangible harms can encompass privacy violations, reputational harms, those sorts of things that aren't quantifiable or economic.

Thank you for that.

And by changing the language from intangible to clarifying, we're talking about tangible harm that still protects the right for somebody to to pursue their grievance for economic harm received as a result of any violation of this policy.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that would be correct.

An economic harm would be likely to be considered a tangible harm.

I will also say that the way that this amendment changes the bill, It changes the definition of this very specific defined term, aggrieved party.

The place in the bill where aggrieved party is used is in a section of both the private right of action and the civil attorney's office enforcement.

That term, aggrieved party, doesn't set at the front end the scope of the persons the types of injuries or the type of persons that could pursue a claim under the private right of action.

Specifically, the term that's used to describe the type of people that can file a claim is someone that suffers an injury, where aggrieved party is used.

And so if your amendment was adopted, the place where intangible harm would be removed is in the section later on that talks about the types of damages available.

So the ordinance describes civil penalty amounts of up to $3,000 per aggrieved party and up to $10,000 per subsequent violations per aggrieved party.

So the aggrieved party is sort of the multiplier that would be applied to those up to $3,000 and up to $10,000 respective damage amounts if the suit was successful and harm was found.

So it's a little bit wonky, but I think it's important to say that it would limit the damages, but not necessarily the types of injuries that could form the basis for a private right of action suit.

Thank you for that clarification.

I really appreciate that.

And colleagues happy to, well, central staff is happy to take questions.

Colleagues, any questions on this amendment?

Seeing and hearing none, I am going to move us along and thank Councilmember Foster for your engagement.

Do you have final word?

I'll pass it to you for final word.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair Rink.

I really appreciate that.

And as always, central staff appreciate your leadership and the clarity.

I hope some of what Tommaso shared today helps clarify the intent and the impact of this amendment.

I just want to restate that my intent is to bring this back to full Council and I look forward to voting on it then.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Appreciate that thoughtfulness.

And with that, I will move us on to Amendment 2. So I move to amend Council Bill 121267 as presented on Amendment 2. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council President.

It is moved and seconded.

As sponsor, I will first address it and then toss it over to central staff.

So I introduced this amendment to clarify some of the language in the original bill around prohibiting use of algorithmic-based price discrimination in programming electronic shelf labels.

This rewording of this section clarifies that this law only regulates the electronic shelf labels in areas of the covered stores that are covered by the law.

The previous wording was ambiguous.

We wanted to make it super clear that we're talking about price labels on groceries in the mega store and not necessarily the refrigerators or TVs.

So with that, I will turn it over to central staff for briefing the amendment.

Sure.

Amendment 2, sponsored by Councilmember Rink, would clarify that the prohibition on the use of an electronic shelf label system for a good that has been modified using algorithmic-based price discrimination would only apply to goods where a covered retailer is prohibited from using algorithmic-based price discrimination to set prices rather than all goods from the covered retailer.

Colleagues, any additional questions or clarifications on this amendment?

I believe this is particularly technical in nature to make sure we're aligning the intent of what we're trying to do with this legislation and addressing groceries.

Is that a hand?

No.

Nope.

All right.

Seeing and hearing no additional questions, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of Amendment 2?

Vice Chair Foster.

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Chair Rink.

Yes.

Chair, there are four members in favor and zero opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Amendment 2 is adopted.

Thank you, colleagues.

With that, we will now consider Amendment 3. Council Member Saka, you are recognized in order to move your amendment as sponsor.

Thank you, Chair.

I move to amend Council Bill 121267 as specifically presented on Amendment 3.

Second.

There we are.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3. Council Member Sacco, you are recognized to address your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And so, colleagues, members of the public, this amendment directly addresses some specific community feedback, particularly, you know, in the grocery retail side when it comes to more clarity and clearer certainty regarding which specific practices the ordinance permits and doesn't.

It makes explicit that when a retailer meets every condition of an exclusion, that specific conduct is not a violation of the pricing prohibition.

This amendment also provides vital clarity to industry partners that legitimate delivery costs differences, conventional coupons, broadly available discounts, and qualifying loyalty promotions remain protected.

And importantly, finally, this amendment preserves all key accountability provisions of the ordinance, including disclosure, rulemaking, record keeping, private enforcement, the city attorney enforcement, et cetera.

So more of a clarification tweak, but a mission critical one as well and ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I'll turn it to Central Staff to brief the amendment.

Thank you.

Once again, Tommaso Johnson, Council Central Staff.

I think Councilmember Saka summed it up.

I'll just say, to reiterate, the amendment essentially provides additional assurance of the language that already exists in the bill with regard to the exceptions that are contained in the definition to algorithmic-based price discrimination and to state that, you know, if conduct that meets all of the conditions of such an exception categorically does not constitute a violation of the prohibitions in proposed 7.35.020, which is the bill's core prohibition on algorithmic-based price discrimination.

And as he's, as Councilmember Saka said, it does explicitly note that that exception still preserves the ability for the rest of the ordinance to take effect regarding record keeping, et cetera.

Thank you for that overview, Tomaso.

Colleagues, questions on this amendment?

Right, I will be noting on this, hearing just the overview on this and seeing what I view as some minimal impact, but some important clarifications.

I will note that I'll be respectfully abstaining from this particular amendment today.

I understand it was circulated yesterday.

And simply just with the overview and some of the timing, I will just be abstaining on this one.

But I thank Council Member Saka for bringing this forward.

and hearing or seeing no additional comments, I am going to move us to a vote.

So will the committee clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 3?

Vice Chair Foster?

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Aye.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair, there are three members in favor, zero opposed and one abstention.

Thank you.

The amendment is, the motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

and with that, colleagues, we have reached the...

We've gone through all of our amendments, so we will now be speaking on the underlying bill.

We have an amendment bill before us.

Before we take a final vote, are there any final comments?

Council President Hollingsworth.

Thank you, Council...

Sorry, Chair Rink.

Council Chair Rank, thank you colleagues for bringing this.

I'll be supporting this today and very happy to.

Just for transparency, I had two amendments that are not prepared in time and that are currently legal.

The first one is a loss prevention clarification to make sure that we have that language there, and I'll be working on that this week and connecting with stakeholders and UFCW and all the folks.

I'm working with mayor's office as well on that, and then also a gas loyalty clarification as well.

Those are two things that I think are incredibly important.

I've said this from the beginning about gas prices.

They're between $5 to $7 a gallon in the state.

and the city is incredibly high so I just want to make sure that we have clarification on gas protections and then the loss prevention clarification.

Washington leads the nation in retail theft.

It's not something that I'm happy that we're leading in so when stores continue to experience a lot of the unfortunately some of the loss prevention and the shrinkage I want to make sure that that's clarified as well with this.

But we'll be voting yes on this today and looking forward to bringing those to full council.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President Hollingsworth.

I want to recognize the co-sponsors on this legislation and invite them to provide final remarks as well.

So Vice Chair Foster, recognizing you next.

Thank you so much, Chair Rink.

And I'll be brief with my remarks.

Protecting families in Seattle continues to be a top priority to me.

And for me, the way that I look at this, this bill is one of the most important ways that we can do that.

it means that families will have more clarity, more surety, more consistency.

I think that so many of us have experienced algorithmic price discrimination in many forms of our lives and surveillance pricing, whether that is going to buy a plane ticket, whether that is Googling something and then suddenly the price changes, or whether that is standing in the grocery store and looking at a box of Cheerios and realizing that the person next to you is looking at a different price for that exact same box of Cheerios.

And that just shouldn't be the case.

So I'm really excited to vote on this bill today and to make one big step forward in addressing these price discrepancies and improving affordability for our residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Foster.

And next, recognizing Council Member Saka.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll have some more fulsome comments at full Council when this goes there, but I just want to thank you, Chair, Councilmember Foster for your partnership and getting us to this point.

I want to thank the Mayor for her partnership and leadership in this.

and all the work of community.

Pardon the latency, it was a little late today because I was in community at an event in West Seattle celebrating our local YMCA here at a charity event and my wife is on the East Coast.

She jumped on a plane earlier this morning.

So that means I'm flying solo on daddy duty.

And depending how long this meeting goes, I'm going to be taking the meeting from my mobile device and you'll see minivan in the background when we're safely parked, of course.

I say all that, like all the logistical details, because it's important and particularly germane in this context.

I'm a working parent.

This bill right here directly helps support and empower working families to do more, do more with their dollars, stretch their dollars further, promote consumers, and it also doesn't unduly stifle innovation, although I'm mindful of some of those concerns, and I think where we're at right now with this bill, it's in a great place.

but this bill promotes working families, directly advances affordability and serves affordability needs as well.

So I'm excited about it and looking forward to getting it across the line in a couple of weeks and appreciate everyone for your partnership in this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I really appreciate those remarks.

I said my big piece at the beginning of this meeting, so I want to close with some gratitude before we take this final vote.

I want to thank again the co-sponsors on this legislation, Councilmember Foster and Councilmember Saka.

I want to thank again the broad coalition of supporters who are standing by this legislation and have continued to show up in council chambers.

to fight for working people.

I appreciate you.

I also want to thank the mayor and the mayor's office.

A lot of work went into crafting this legislation, so I specifically want to thank Sejal Parikh, Arti Nosrati, Karim Levita, Sage Wilson, Cheryl Dellestrinos, and Barbara Talkington for their hard work over a number of months to craft this legislation.

And thank you to Tim Lennon on my team for his careful work alongside in crafting this legislation and supporting this legislative process.

And I would be remiss if I didn't also thank central staff's hard work alongside our office in crafting this legislation.

So huge thank you to Jasmine Maraja and Tommaso Johnson.

and with that, colleagues, I am going to call the final roll.

So will the committee clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass the bill as amended?

Vice Chair Foster?

Yes.

Council President Hollingsworth?

Yes.

Council Member Saka?

Aye.

Chair Rink?

Yes.

Chair, there are four members in favor and zero opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill be passed will be sent to the September 22nd City Council meeting.

Thank you.

It's always fun to hear applause in chambers.

Colleagues, I want to thank you again for your hard work in support of this bill, for strengthening it, not just here in committee, but just over the past couple of months.

I know each of you put a lot of hours into this working with my office, and I just want to say I see you and I appreciate you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

As this legislation enters the homestretch, and the rest of our colleagues will also have a chance to weigh in on this discussion, I think we've sent a clear and united message here today that Seattleites deserve fair and transparent pricing.

Thank you, everyone.

We have reached the end of today's committee agenda.

Is there anything for the good of the order?

Seeing and hearing none.

Council President, do you have anything to share?

Thank you.

Seeing and hearing none, the next Human Services Labor and Economic Development Committee meeting is scheduled for next Friday, September 18th at 9.30 a.m.

That meeting will be much longer than the one today.

That will be the final meeting of this committee before Council heads into budget.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

It is 3.32 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.