Home>Articles>California Businesses Prepare For End Of ‘Pink Tax’ January 1st

Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. (Kevin Sanders for California Globe)

California Businesses Prepare For End Of ‘Pink Tax’ January 1st

Gender products law prohibits charging women higher prices for similar products

By Evan Symon, December 22, 2022 2:30 am

Throughout the week, business across California are preparing for the end of charging differently for men’s and women’s items that are priced similarly.

Earlier this year, the Legislature passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1287 into law. According to the bill’s author Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), AB 1287 will “Prohibit a person, firm, partnership, company, corporation, or business from charging a different price for any 2 goods that are substantially similar, as defined, if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended. The bill will authorize the Attorney General to seek an injunction to enjoin and restrain the continuance of those violations, and would authorize the court, in addition to granting the injunction, to impose a civil penalty, as specified.”

In layman’s term, specific products usually offered to different genders, such as razors, jeans, and different hygiene products, cannot be charged differently in stores. While the bill will allow for price differences when “goods have a significant difference in the cost or time to produce”, the end of the pink tax next month is expected to end the movement to get rid of the pink tax in California, which has been going strong since the 1990’s.

“The ‘Pink Tax’ is a gender based penalty that harms women who are already paid less,” said Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan in September. “This type of arbitrary gendered pricing has no place in California. It’s long past time to eliminate this type of inequality. I’m grateful Governor Newsom has signed this bill to ensure price equality in California.”

The change is expected to lead to not easy changes in stores across the state.

“With the prices now the same, we’re going to have to spend extra to make sure that all differences are more clearly marked,” said May, a manager for a large-scale chain retailer in San Bernardino, on Wednesday to the Globe. “You wouldn’t think it, with different aisles for men’s products and women’s products. Most people would just assume a change, and update on price stickers, and you’re done. But we’re foreseeing a lot of mix-ups as things costing the same will be one less indicator that someone bought the wrong thing.”

“And in a clothing section, when people stick things they don’t want anymore anywhere, it can get difficult. It’s not that we’re against the change. In fact, many want it. But it will lead to greater confusion amongst consumers is all.”

Other retailers expressed similar sentiments.

“A lot of price changes will happen come January to equalize some of the prices,” added Paul Keyes, a retail business owner in Orange County to the Globe. “It’s good that it will happen, but switching everything around will be a major hassle for sure. I can already see the returns coming from people who got the wrong thing, like a men’s version instead of a ladies version. Hopefully people will get used to it, or we’re going to have to further split up aisles based on products geared towards men and women.”

AB 1287 is expected to come into effect on January 1st.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Evan Symon
Spread the news:


14 thoughts on “California Businesses Prepare For End Of ‘Pink Tax’ January 1st

  1. How silly.
    If you buy “Newsom’s Own Hair Gel”, you pay the same price he does. If you want fu-fu packaging and ads in Better Hair Keeping, you are going to pay for that.
    What is being created is another product testing bureaucracy to give affirmative action and gender studies losers a job, and force “Mary’s Better Hair Gel” to be “Licensed for Sale in California”!

  2. “The ‘Pink Tax’ is a gender based penalty that harms women who are already paid less,” said Democrat Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan in September and added that “This type of arbitrary gendered pricing has no place in California. It’s long past time to eliminate this type of inequality.” Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan seems to be making arbitrary gender comparisions? She seems to be unaware of the fact that the number of college educated women in California now greatly exceeds the number of college educated men and that women often earn more than men? No retailer is forcing anyone to buy their products? She’s a typical leftist Democrat lawyer who has never run a business but she’s dictating how business owners can run their businesses?

    1. So sorry to see that you missed the point! Bauer-Kahan seems to be very aware of the fact that the number of college educated women in California now exceeds the number of men. She seems to be very aware that those same women on average receive about 84 percent the pay of men, for similar jobs and similar education levels. The disparity is smaller among younger women (at 93 percent), but it’s still there.

      BTW, Oxford says “disparity” is a difference in level or treatment, especially one that is seen as unfair. “Disparity” is not the same as “comparison.”

      1. You missed the point. No retailer is forcing anyone to buy their products. Assemblywoman Bauer-Kahan has lived an entire life as a pampered Democrat bureaucrat who has never run a business. She is abusing her position to dictate how business owners can run their businesses.

      2. @Science Facts The gender pay gap is a myth that has been debunked again and again. Stop the leftistist lying.

        1. Sorry, I didn’t realize that quoting statistics from published research is “leftistist lying.” But it would be great if you can point us to non-mythical, non-leftistist research?

          Stockton, Michelle. “Poverty Rates Among Single-Mother Households and Single-Father Households in the US.” (2022).

          1. Where’s the link to this “published research?” What value is “published research” when it contains manipulated data to support a preconceived leftist bias? With all the major problems Californians face, this isn’t one of them? The poster Science Facts seems to be heavily invested in defending this legislation which is suspicious? Which lobby group is behind it and why?

  3. Sounds like if a product for women is 5.99 and one for men is 4.99 — companies will change profit more to raise mens to 5.99

    Government never know how system works but meddle where they should not.

    1. Businesses will just raise the prices of men’s products that are cheaper to produce than comparable women’s products so that they don’t have to waste time and effort explaining why the prices are different. As always, more government regulation creates higher prices for everyone.

  4. More stupidity out of Sacramento! If these people would spend some time on actual problems in this state, maybe businesses and citizens would stay instead of leaving in droves!

  5. Don’t expect women’s merch to drop in price. Most likely men’s products will rise in price. This law is primarily an invitation to endless litigation.

    In other news I just learned from this thread that “publishing” something somehow makes “facts”. LOL

  6. There are other reasons for price disparities for gender-based products besides actual physical differences. Differences in demand, for example. Democrats have just performed another experiment in unintended consequences. Prices for women’s products are not going to go down; due to the added complexities for retailers, prices on everything are going to go UP.

  7. Does this cover dry cleaning too?
    It’s exasperating to pay more for slacks for a women than a man’s pair of slacks. And they are generally bigger. Women pay more for so many things, but knowing the greed of companies, the cost for men’s things will probably go up. Maybe men will open their eyes to a women’s plight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *