A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

California has strict price gouging regulation in place

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok
Todd M Friedman price gougingIn March and April, when the coronavirus really began spreading throughout the United States, many Californians rushed to the store to stock up on essentials: hand sanitizer, hand soap, paper towels and toilet paper. N95 masks were nearly impossible to find for those who really needed or wanted them. While supplies were low, however, California retailers legally couldn’t hike up prices drastically. Price gouging during an emergency in California is illegal. In fact, retailers can’t raise the price of goods or services more than 10% after the president, governor or city mayor declares an emergency. The emergency declaration usually lasts 30 days, but government officials can extend it (as has been the case during the coronavirus pandemic).

What’s covered under California’s anti-price gouging statute?

The goods and services covered by California’s anti-price gouging law include the following:
  • Food and drink (including food and drink for animals)
  • Lodging (including apartment rentals)
  • Water
  • Flashlights
  • Radios
  • Soap
  • Diapers
  • Medical supplies
  • Prescription and nonprescription medication
  • Antibacterial products
  • Building materials
  • Transportation
  • Freight
  • Storage services
  • Gasoline
  • Repair and reconstruction services
The consequences of violating the price gouging law are a one-year prison sentence or a $10,000 fine.

What if I’m a victim of price gouging?

If you feel you have been a victim of price gouging during the current health crisis, contact an experienced attorney. An attorney can review your claim to see if price gouging occurred and formulate a plan to protect your consumer rights.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.