Starting January 1, companies in California can no longer charge different prices for products aimed ... [+]
Charging more for pink razors or other items marketed to women will become illegal in California on January 1. Often called the "pink tax," the practice of charging different prices for men and women for similar goods and services will no longer be tolerated in the state. It's estimated that, on average, women pay about $2,381 more per year for the same goods and services as men—that's $47 billion extra women spend in California.
A study of gender pricing in New York City examined 742 products and found that from toys to clothes to personal care, products for women and girls cost about 7% more than those for men and boys. The state of California estimates that women spend about $188,000 more than men throughout their lifetime on the pink tax.
But the new California bill may be hard to enforce. The law prohibits "charging a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar, if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended." To qualify, two goods must have the same intended use, have no substantial differences in production materials, have similar designs and features, and have the same brand or be owned by the same entity.
Liz Grauerholz, a sociology professor at the University of Central Florida who researches the pink tax, says it may be hard to enforce the law because it's often tough to compare women's and men's products directly. "It is almost impossible to make a side-by-side comparison. And I honestly believe that manufacturers have gotten pretty wise to the pink tax, so they make them [men's and women's items] look like completely different products to make those side-by-side comparisons really difficult."
She adds that women's products often have more ingredients and some different ingredients than men's products making comparisons even more difficult. Thus, it’s unlikely that California women will reap big savings as a result of the new law.
Although the pink tax weighs heavily on women’s products, there are products for which men are willing to pay more. In one study, Grauerholz and colleagues found that while women pay more than men for deodorants ($0.47 per ounce more) and lotions ($1.11 per ounce more), men pay $0.77 per ounce more than women for shaving creams and gels. Grauerholz says men are willing to invest more in shaving materials because they’re expected to be clean-shaven. "Marketers know men will invest and spend more money on shaving creams, so there are more designer and name-brand shaving creams for men than women. The opposite is true for lotions," she says.
In addition, Grauerholz says that aside from some shaving products, designer and luxury brand items are almost exclusively marketed to women, adding to the prices charged to female consumers. Women's products also often focus on maintaining a youthful appearance, which is valued more by women than men. She and fellow researchers write, "It is not uncommon for women's lotion products to emphasize anti-aging, firming, rejuvenation, or anti-cellulite properties, but such products are almost nonexistent for men." This emphasis again makes it difficult to enforce the pink tax law for these products.
Typically, there's no functional or biological reason to have products differentiated by gender. Instead, these products reflect how society thinks men and women should look and smell. The gendered marketing of deodorants with and without antiperspirant illustrates this difference. Antiperspirants reduce sweat, while deodorants control odor. Interestingly, the majority of antiperspirants are aimed at women.
Over 70% of deodorants without antiperspirant are aimed at men, while the vast majority of women's deodorants include antiperspirant. "Sweating or perspiring for women is seen as more inappropriate, generally speaking, than it is for men. For men, it shows they're working hard, but, for women, it could be seen as very unfeminine," Grauerholz says. Again the different ingredients in the men’s and women’s products make side-by-side comparisons more difficult.
The new law doesn’t just apply to personal care products but also covers toys. In 2015, Radio Flyer sold a red scooter for boys and a pink scooter for girls. Both featured plastic handlebars, three wheels, a foot brake and weighed about five pounds. Yet, Target
Recent outcries encouraged stores like Target to stop differentiating toys by gender. The retailer no longer labels which toys are for girls and boys, allowing the children to decide for themselves. Nonetheless, we don't seem to mind allowing marketers to tell adult men and women how they should smell and appear. Like the old toy aisles, deodorants and lotions are still often directly labeled "for men" or "for women."
Although the California law may be difficult to enforce and may not make a huge difference in women’s savings, it's an essential step in the right direction. "I think it's great that the law has gone into effect because it does raise awareness, and, in some cases, there may be remedies," Grauerholz says.
Not everyone is in favor of the law. Retailers and manufacturers of women’s products argue that it would be difficult to enforce and result in unnecessary lawsuits. They also point to the difficulty of pinpointing the causes of the price differences between men’s and women’s products. In a report on the pink tax, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) disclosed that federal agencies monitor consumer complaints and identified very few concerns regarding price differences based on the consumer’s sex or gender.
Other pink tax laws have already taken effect, and New York was the first state to eliminate the pink tax on both goods and services in 2020. A federal bill called the Pink Tax Repeal Act was introduced in the U.S. House in 2021 but remains without a vote. An earlier version of the bill introduced in 2016 failed to make it out of committee.
In California, a 1995 law already ensures services like hair salons, tailors and dry cleaners charge the same prices for men and women. The new law extends this to include physical goods with gender-based price differences.
