Introduction:- Elimination of Pink Tax in California- A step to end Gender based Pricing
Elimination of Pink Tax in California: Good News for the Female or any individual who use female products as California introduced the Elimination of Pink Tax on 1st January 2023. Which would decrease the Biasness of prices of Female products.
For the Web-Story of this Article “Click Here“.
What is Pink Tax?
The term “pink tax” is frequently used to characterise a situation in which goods connected to women are more expensive than those connected to men. In general, women pay a higher price than men do for comparable goods.
The companies who sell the products are the ones who impose the pink tax, not the government. Experts contend that market forces are to blame for the gap in prices.
A 2015 research by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that without good cause, women’s items are sometimes more expensive than men’s. According to the study’s findings, goods offered explicitly to women typically cost 7% more than goods sold to men.
Clothing, toys, and healthcare supplies are among the items in this discrepancy. Personal care and hygiene items saw the biggest difference, with women’s products costing 13% more than men’s.
For example a razor for a male by company ‘x’ is sold at $10 whereas, the same company who makes a razor for female sells at $11. Though ,their design and functioning are completely same the razor for female is sold at a Higher price.
This is known as ‘Pink Tax’ This taxes are not levied by the government rather it is implied by the marketing company for their sole purpose of profit.
They believe that Females are more conscious about their and appearance so to maintain their personality they will purchase the product even at a higher price.
Laws that Eliminate the Pink Law:-
Chapter 555 of Assembly Bill No. 1287
Act to amend the Civil Code to include Section 51.14, which relates to civil rights.
Overview:
Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In spite of this, women continue to pay more on average for identical products that are promoted exclusively to women and are frequently just a different colour – a phenomenon known as the “Pink Tax.”
According to the US Government Accountability Office, women typically pay 7% more for goods that are marketed to certain genders, such as apparel and toiletries. Additionally, they must pay more for items like mortgage rates that appear to be neutral in price.
Problems with the Pink Law:
When identical products are marketed to women using characteristics like packaging and colour, they frequently cost more money. This is merely an unfair and arbitrary “Pink Tax” that increases the financial burden on women and does not correspond to a difference in the worth of the good.
Implication of AB 1287:
According to this rule, a company institution is not allowed to charge a customer differently based on their gender while providing similar or related services. Existing law also mandates that certain businesses disclose in writing the costs associated with each standard service, as defined, display a sign informing customers that it is unlawful to base prices on their gender and that a complete price list is available upon request, and display a price list in a particular way.
Customers may also request a copy of the complete price list from these businesses.
According to the proposed legislation, it is unlawful for anyone to charge a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar, as defined, if the price difference is caused by the gender of the consumers who will be using the products. The Attorney General would be permitted to request an injunction to stop and prevent the continuation of those violations, and the court would also be permitted to impose a civil penalty as stipulated in addition to granting the injunction.
According to the bill, two products must have the following qualities in order to be considered “substantially similar”:
- There aren’t any notable variations in the producing materials.
- Similar purposes are intended.
- Similar elements and utilitarian design are used.
- Both brands are owned by the same person or company, or they share the same brand.
Fines for the violation of the law:
As in New York, only the state attorney general is authorised to enforce the Pink Tax statute, and given prior notice to the defendant, he or she may ask the court to issue an injunction to stop further violations. A private right of action is not specifically included in the new legislation.
Penalties for breaking the new rule are substantially harsher than those permitted by the gender-based pricing ban in New York for businesses: a civil fine of up to $10,000 for a first offence.
$1,000 for each successive offence, with a cap of $100,000 on the total fine.
Every time two basically equivalent things are priced differently, there has been a violation.
If a defendant later violates the Pink Tax law: With respect to the same products for which the maximum penalty has already been issued in a different civil action, the court may impose further civil penalties over the $100,000 cap.
For any good in relation to which the attorney general has not filed a civil lawsuit in accordance with the Pink Tax statute.