A salon may quote a price for a “women’s haircut” before checking the customer’s hair. Nearby, similar razors may carry different prices and gendered packaging. Such encounters help explain the term “pink tax.” It refers to additional costs sometimes associated with goods and services marketed to women, not to a tax imposed by the government. Nor is it the same as the “tampon tax,” which concerns sales taxes on menstrual products. The first involves business pricing; the second involves tax rules. Confusing them makes it harder to see what consumer-protection laws can actually change.
The discussion gained momentum after New York City published its From Cradle to Cane investigation in 2015. Officials compared 794 products from 91 brands at 24 retailers, including clothing, personal care and products for seniors. Items marketed to female consumers averaged 7% more than comparable male-targeted items across the sample. This was a snapshot of selected merchandise, not proof that every woman spends 7% more on shopping. But it revealed price differences that shoppers might overlook across multiple purchases.
Product details make comparisons more complicated than pink versus blue packaging. In 2023, researchers publishing in Marketing Science examined extensive retail sales records and the ingredients of personal-care products. They found price gaps alongside frequent differences in formulations. When the comparison was restricted to products with similar leading ingredients, a consistent price premium for women’s products did not appear. In three of five categories studied this way, women’s versions were actually cheaper. That does not prove every price gap is fair, but it shows that reliable comparisons need more than packaging color or marketing labels.
Services present a different problem because work is tailored to individuals. A dry cleaner might handle two jackets made from comparable fabrics using the same process, yet list separate rates for men’s and women’s garments. A stylist might charge by gender instead of time and complexity. California confronted this issue in 1995 with its Gender Tax Repeal Act. The statute prohibits gender-based price discrimination for services of similar kind, while allowing differences connected to the time, difficulty or expense of the work. Haircuts need not cost the same; differences must have a non-gender basis.
New York expanded the legal approach in 2020. Its prohibition on gender-based pricing, effective September 30 of that year, addresses both consumer services and substantially similar goods. For products, brand, purpose, materials and design matter; color alone does not establish a substantial difference. For services, relevant factors include how long the task takes, its difficulty and its cost. Identical school supplies marketed separately to boys and girls illustrate the issue when one version costs more. Premium products remain permitted; unexplained gender-based differences are the concern.
California followed with a product-specific measure that took effect on January 1, 2023. Assembly Bill 1287 extends protection against gender-based differences in the prices of substantially similar consumer goods. It covers situations in which a product’s intended audience, rather than a material distinction, explains the amount charged. The statute also recognizes that comparable-looking items can cost different amounts to produce. Manufacturing labor, materials, time and other gender-neutral reasons can justify a different price. Consumers who suspect a violation can file a complaint with the California Attorney General’s Office, which enforces the law. However, the existence of two different price tags is not, by itself, enough to determine that a merchant broke the law. What matters is the relationship between the products and the basis for the pricing.
A national rule has remained a separate legislative question. In May 2025, the Pink Tax Repeal Act, H.R. 3374, was introduced in the US House of Representatives to address gender-based pricing of substantially similar goods and services across the country. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; the available legislative record does not show it becoming federal law. Its proposal reflects a practical problem: protections differ by state, meaning that an objectionable price difference may fall under a specific state rule in one location but not under an equivalent nationwide prohibition. Consumers should therefore distinguish an enacted law from a proposal when deciding what rights they can invoke.
For anyone considering a complaint, the strongest evidence is usually mundane. Record both prices at the same store and on the same date. Check quantities, model numbers, ingredients, manufacturing materials and intended use; photographs of packaging alone can conceal relevant differences. If a service is involved, ask what tasks are included and whether the price reflects the time required. Keep the posted price list and receipt. These details make it easier to tell a questionable gender-based surcharge from an ordinary difference in quality or labor. They also give an enforcement agency something more specific to assess than the impression that one product looks unfairly expensive.
The same comparison habits can help shoppers spend less without filing a complaint. Unit prices are often more revealing than package prices, especially when containers look similar but hold different quantities. People can choose a product marketed to another gender if its features meet their needs; the label is not a restriction on who may use it. Businesses, meanwhile, can reduce disputes by describing service prices according to the actual work and by documenting objective product differences. The broader issue is not whether all women’s and men’s goods should carry matching prices. It is whether customers can identify what they are paying for, and whether a higher charge survives scrutiny once gendered marketing is removed from the equation.