When Did the Pink Tax Start? A Historical Look

The “pink tax” is a colloquial term for gender-based price discrimination, referring to the practice of charging more for products or services marketed to women than for comparable items marketed to men or as unisex. This is a pricing strategy, not a formal government tax, that results in women paying a premium for goods and services due to their gender. It highlights a pricing disparity across various consumer categories, impacting women’s purchasing power and prompting discussions about economic fairness.

Early Observations of Price Disparities

While the term “pink tax” emerged more recently, the underlying practice of charging women more for certain goods and services has likely existed for a considerable time. Anecdotal evidence suggests consumers began noticing these pricing differences in everyday items and services well before formal studies. In the early to mid-20th century, women observed higher costs for services such as dry cleaning and haircuts compared to similar offerings for men. These were often isolated instances, fostering a quiet understanding of these disparities.

During the latter half of the 20th century, these informal observations gained more attention. A 1992 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), “Gypped by Gender,” highlighted that women frequently paid more for services like dry cleaning, laundry, and hair salon services. This report indicated that these price differences were often accepted as a norm by consumers largely unaware of the disparity’s extent. A 1994 investigation for the California Senate found that 64% of stores in major cities charged more to clean a woman’s blouse than a man’s shirt, further solidifying early understandings of gender-based pricing.

Formal Recognition and Advocacy

The “pink tax” gained formal recognition and public discussion in the 1990s, with the term becoming widely used in the 2010s. This shift from anecdotal evidence to documented fact was driven by systematic studies and organized advocacy efforts. A 1994 report by the California Assembly Office of Research estimated that women in California paid approximately $1,351 more annually for similar products and services compared to men.

A 2015 study by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer,” analyzed nearly 800 products across 35 categories. It found that items marketed to women cost, on average, 7% more than comparable products for men. The disparity was particularly pronounced in personal care products, where women’s versions were 13% more expensive. Organizations like the Consumer Federation of America and the National Organization for Women have since campaigned against these pricing practices, raising public awareness and influencing policy debates.

Legislative Responses and Milestones

Increasing awareness of gender-based pricing disparities led to legislative action aimed at addressing the “pink tax.” California enacted the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, making it illegal for businesses to charge different prices for similar services based on gender. This law directly responded to earlier studies and advocacy highlighting price differences in services like dry cleaning and haircuts.

Following California’s initiative, other jurisdictions began to consider similar measures. New York City passed a law in 1998 requiring businesses to inform customers of any gender-based price differences not due to additional labor or cost. In 2020, New York became the first state to implement a statewide ban on the “pink tax” for both goods and services. Building on its earlier efforts, California further strengthened its consumer protection laws in 2022 with Assembly Bill 1287, prohibiting different prices for substantially similar goods based on the gender to which they are marketed, effective January 1, 2023. These legislative milestones represent a historical progression from initial consumer observations to formal recognition and concrete legal efforts to combat gender-based price discrimination.