What is the government’s role in consumer prices?

I started the Feb. 5 column with that question, and in the weeks since, it’s becoming clear this might be a prevailing concern for the General Assembly’s spring session.

Three weeks ago the focus was Senate Bill 2255, the Surveillance-Based Price and Wage Discrimination Act, which Sen. Rob Peters, D-Chicago, called “commonsense legislation that would protect our residents from price gouging, wage discrimination and data privacy threats,” by limiting business’ ability to feed customers’ behavior patterns, internet browsing history and other information into algorithms allowing them to “charge personal prices for customers or set personal wage rates for gig workers.”

On Tuesday, Capitol News Illinois reported on two similar proposals: House Bill 4248, co-sponsored by Reps. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, and Maura Hirschauer, D-Batavia, which would require companies to disclose when they use algorithmic pricing and let consumers opt out; and HB 4544, sponsored by Rep. Eva Dina Delgado, D-Chicago, which would require only disclosure.

The CNI report held up as examples retail-type purchases, like fast food and groceries, though it also referenced airfare and housing. Delgado’s bill specifically excluded banking and insurance, as those industries already are subject to stringent regulations.

But we’ve talked about that this month as well, such as the Feb. 17 column exploring whether lawmakers might take another pass at giving the Department of Insurance new influence over rate increases in homeowner policies.

Then there’s Senate Bill 2799, from Sen. Julie Morrison, D-Deerfield, which would amend the Genetic Information Privacy Act to bar health insurers from using information collected during treatment to cancel, limit or deny coverage, among other changes.

It’s not difficult to consider the various perspectives on most of these concerns. Does it seem fair that every landlord in town could quietly agree on the lowest possible rent amount? Are you willing to lose out on restaurant loyalty rewards tied to your phone number or email address? Would you get a test your doctor recommended if you thought that might make your grandkids ineligible for basic medical coverage? Isn’t it convenient when the app reminds you it might be time for a new furnace filter?

Even granting that lawmakers may be sincere in adopting pro-consumer agendas, it will be difficult to engender widespread endorsement without acknowledging certain business practices are above-board, supply-and-demand style pricing decisions, and further that some customers are just willing or able to pay more than others to get what they want.

These issues aren’t unique to Illinois (CNI reported California and New York both regulate algorithmic pricing), and many questions ultimately have answers in federal policy. But they certainly will continue to be significant Springfield topics. Our personal data is definitely big business.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.