Goodbye, 'Pink Tax': New Bill Bans Gender-Based Price Hikes on Identical Products and Services

This bill, officially titled the Pink Tax Repeal Act, makes a straightforward but significant move: it bans businesses from charging different prices for consumer products or services based solely on the gender they are marketed toward. The core idea is that if two products are “substantially similar”—meaning they use the same materials, have the same function, and are basically designed the same—they must cost the same, regardless of whether one is packaged in blue and the other in pink. This also applies to services, where price differences can’t be justified unless the service takes significantly more time, is harder to perform, or costs the provider more to deliver.

The 'Substantially Similar' Test: What Changes?

For years, consumers—particularly women—have noticed the so-called “pink tax,” where items like razors, shampoo, or even dry cleaning cost more when marketed to women, despite being functionally identical to their male-marketed counterparts. This bill aims to shut that down (SEC. 2). For products, the only way a company can justify a price difference is if there’s a substantial difference in the materials, functional design, or intended use. Just changing the color or adding a different scent won’t cut it under this new rule. Think about it: if you’re buying a scooter, and the only difference between the “boys’” version and the “girls’” version is the paint job, the price has to be the same.

Haircuts and Handyman Services: How Services Are Affected

The pricing rules also extend to services. If you’ve ever paid more for a haircut described as a “women’s cut” versus a “men’s cut,” even when both take the same amount of time and effort, this bill targets that practice. To charge different prices based on gender for services, the provider must prove a difference in the time required, the difficulty of the task, or the cost of the materials used to deliver that service. If a service provider charges a woman $10 more for a basic oil change than a man, they’ll need to prove that the woman’s car somehow required a more expensive or complicated process to justify the difference (SEC. 2).

Who’s Enforcing This New Rule?

When new rules drop, the big question is always: who’s the referee? In this case, it’s the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They will treat any violation of this gender-based pricing ban as an unfair or deceptive business practice, giving them the full power of their existing enforcement tools to investigate and penalize companies (SEC. 2). But the bill also gives a powerful tool to State Attorneys General (AGs). If an AG believes residents are being harmed by a company’s discriminatory pricing, they can sue the violator in federal court to stop the practice and get money back (damages or restitution) for consumers. This dual enforcement mechanism means companies won’t just have the FTC looking over their shoulder; state-level consumer protection officers will also be able to hold them accountable.

The Fine Print: Potential Legal Headaches

While the intent is clear—economic fairness for consumers—the implementation might get a little messy. The bill relies heavily on the definition of “substantially similar.” What exactly counts as a substantial difference? For example, if a razor marketed to women has a moisturizing strip with a slightly more expensive ingredient than the one marketed to men, is that enough to justify a price difference? The FTC and the courts will have to draw those lines, and businesses are likely to test the boundaries by making minor, legally defensible changes to products to justify price variances. This reliance on subjective terms means we should expect some legal wrangling as companies adjust their pricing models to comply with the new standard.