Editing Price discrimination (section)

===Gender-based examples===
{{Main|Gender-based price discrimination in the United States}}
Gender-based price discrimination is the practice of offering identical or similar services and products to men and women at different prices when the cost of producing the products and services is the same.<ref>''See generally'' Pricee Discrimination, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).</ref> In the United States, gender-based price discrimination has been a source of debate.<ref>''See, e.g.''., Civil Rights – Gender Discrimination – California Prohibits Gender-Based Pricing – Cal. Civ. Code. § 51.6 (West Supp. 1996), 109 Harv. L. Rev. 1839, 1839 (1996) (“Differential pricing of services is one of America's last remaining vestiges of formal gender-based discrimination.”); Joyce McClements and Cheryl Thomas, Public Accommodations Statutes: Is Ladies' Night Out?, 37 Mercer  L. Rev. 1605, 1618 (1986); Heidi Paulson, ''Ladies' Night Discounts: Should We Bar Them or Promote Them?'', 32 B.C. L. Rev. 487, 528 (1991) (arguing that ladies' night promotions encourage paternalistic attitudes toward women and encourage stereotypes of both men and women).</ref> In 1992, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs ("DCA") conducted an investigation of "price bias against women in the marketplace".<ref name="nycdca2">{{cite web |last=Bessendorf |first=Anna |date=December 2015 |title=From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer |url=http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/partners/Study-of-Gender-Pricing-in-NYC.pdf |access-date=August 25, 2018 |website=New York City Department of Consumer Affairs}}</ref> The DCA's investigation concluded that women paid more than men at used car dealers, dry cleaners, and hair salons.<ref name="nycdca2" /> The DCA's research on gender pricing in New York City brought national attention to gender-based price discrimination and the financial impact it has on women.

With consumer products, differential pricing is usually not based explicitly on the actual gender of the purchaser, but is achieved implicitly by the use of differential packaging, labelling, or colour schemes designed to appeal to male or female consumers. In many cases, where the product is marketed to make an attractive gift, the gender of the purchaser may be different from that of the end user.

In 1995, California Assembly's Office of Research studied the issue of gender-based price discrimination of services and estimated that women effectively paid an annual "[[Pink tax|gender tax]]" of approximately $1,351.00 for the same services as men.<ref name="California State Senate 19952">California State Senate, Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, AB 1100 (Aug. 31, 1995).</ref> It was also estimated that women, over the course of their lives, spend thousands of dollars more than men to purchase similar products.<ref name="California State Senate 19952" /> For example, prior to the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act<ref>Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (to be codified in scattered titles and sections)[hereinafter Affordable Care Act].</ref> ("Affordable Care Act"), health insurance companies charged women higher premiums for individual health insurance policies than men. Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies are now required to offer the same premium price to all applicants of the same age and geographical locale without regard to gender.<ref>Affordable Care Act § 2701, 124 Stat. 119, 37–38</ref> However, there is no federal law banning gender-based price discrimination in the sale of products.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Paquette |first=Danielle |date=2021-11-25 |title=Analysis {{!}} Why you should always buy the men's version of almost anything |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/22/women-really-do-pay-more-for-razors-and-almost-everything-else/ |access-date=2023-08-07 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Instead, several cities and states have passed legislation prohibiting gender-based price discrimination on products and services.

In Europe, motor insurance premiums have historically been higher for men than for women, a practice that the insurance industry attempts to justify on the basis of different levels of risk. The EU has banned this practice; however, there is evidence that it is being replaced by "proxy discrimination", that is, discrimination on the basis of factors that are strongly correlated with gender: for example, charging construction workers more than midwives.<ref>{{cite web |last=Collinson |first=Patrick |date=14 January 2017 |title=EU's gender ruling on car insurance has made inequality worse |url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2017/jan/14/eu-gender-ruling-car-insurance-inequality-worse |website=The Guardian}}</ref>

In Chinese retail automobile market, researchers found that male buyers pay less than female buyers for cars with the same characteristics. Although this research documented the existence of price discrimination between locals and non-locals, local men still receive $221.63 discount more than local women and non-local men receive $330.19 discount more than non-local women. The discount represents approximately 10% of average personal budget, considering the per capita GDP for 2018.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Li-Zhong |last2=Hu |first2=Wei-Min |last3=Szulga |first3=Radek |last4=Zhou |first4=Xiaolan |date=2018-02-01 |title=Demographics, gender and local knowledge – Price discrimination in China's car market |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176517304792 |journal=Economics Letters |language=en |volume=163 |pages=172–174 |doi=10.1016/j.econlet.2017.11.026 |issn=0165-1765}}</ref>