November 29, 2020

Volume X, Number 334


Does ‘New and Improved’ Products Mean I can Charge a New and Improved Price?

State price gouging laws do not typically address product improvements or reformulations. Still, businesses should consider price gouging restrictions when releasing “new and improved” products, as the same pricing considerations that may apply to new products may also apply to improved, updated or reformulated products.

A company that is developing or considering releasing a reformulation of its current product may have previously evaluated whether the product is subject to state price gouging laws. Where the previous version of the product was covered, any reformulation is likely covered as well.

Given the additional costs that may accompany a reformulation, there may be additional justifications for price increases when releasing a new version of a product. In California, for example, a company can increase the price for its reformulated product to factor in the costs for, among other things, sourcing new or more expensive ingredients. As long as the total price does not exceed fifty percent greater than the total costs of producing and selling the product, it should not run afoul of that state’s law. A business that resells that reformulated product arguably may then price it at up to, but no more than, fifty percent greater than the amount it paid for the product to the extent it is treated as essentially a new product

In other states, a company considering reformulation may want to reference the price of similar goods as a baseline, while also gauging what the state statute considers to be legal justifications for setting prices that exceed the price of similar goods. Under Pennsylvania law, the state typically presumes prices are unconscionably excessive if they are 20% or more above “the average price at which the same or similar consumer goods or services were obtainable in the affected area during the last seven days immediately prior to the declared state of emergency.” But those provisions do not apply where a higher price is “substantially attributable to additional costs that arose within the chain of distribution in connection.”

In Florida, the price gouging statute suggests there would be a comparison of the amount charged for the reformulated product to “the average price at which the same or similar commodity was readily obtainable in the trade area during the 30 days immediately prior to [the] declaration of a state of emergency,” which, for purposes of the current COVD-19 emergency, was March 9, 2020 in Florida. If the reformulated product is more expensive than similar products, companies can provide evidence that “the increase in the amount charged is attributable to additional costs incurred,” or due to “regional, national, or international market trends,” and thereby rebut a presumption of price gouging.

Given the lack of direct treatment of this category of products in the price gouging laws, pricing in these instances may require additional thought to ensure compliance. As a general rule, however, businesses looking to bring reformulated products to the market should be aware that price increases for reformulated products likely fall within the majority of the allowable exceptions if they reflect cost increases and maintain (or even, in some cases, increase) a measure of profit margin.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume X, Number 206



About this Author

Christopher Ondeck, Antitrust Litigator, Proskauer Rose, law firm

Chris Ondeck is a partner in the Litigation Department and vice-chair of the Antitrust Group. He focuses his practice on representing clients in civil and criminal antitrust litigation, defending mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies, defending companies involved in government investigations, and providing antitrust counseling.

Chris has handled antitrust matters for clients in a number of industries, including advertising, aerospace, alcoholic beverages, appliances, building materials, defense, medical devices, metals,...

John Ingrassia, Antitrust Attorney, Telecommunications, Proskauer Law firm
Special Counsel

John Ingrassia is a special counsel and advises clients on a wide range of antitrust matters in various industries, including chemicals, pharmaceutical, medical devices, telecommunications, financial services, health care, and others. His practice includes a significant focus on the analysis of Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger notification requirements, the coordination and submission of Hart-Scott-Rodino filings, and the analysis and resolution of antitrust issues related to mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. John has extensive experience with the legal, practical,...

Kelly Landers Hawthorne, Proskauer Law Firm, New York, Litigation Attorney

Kelly Landers Hawthorne is an attorney in the Litigation Department.


  • Columbia Law School, J.D., 2017

  • George Mason University, M.Ed., 2013

  • University of Richmond, B.A., 2011

Nicollette R. Moser Litigation & Antitrust Proskauer Rose Washington, DC

Nicollette Moser is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust Group.

Related Practices

  • Litigation
  • Antitrust

Admissions & Qualifications

  • District of Columbia
Jennifer E. Tarr Litigation Attorney Proskauer Rose Washington, DC

Jennifer E. Tarr is an associate in the Litigation Department.

Related Practices

  • Litigation
  • Antitrust

Related Industries

  • Sports