All articles tagged with #price discrimination
New Jersey's Fair Price Protection Act prohibits retailers from using shoppers' personal data to charge different prices for the same products, making the state the third in the U.S. to ban surveillance pricing; the law also imposes a one-year pause on rolling out new electronic shelf labels while the impact is studied, with loyalty programs unaffected.
New Jersey’s Senate passed the Fair Price Protection Act to ban surveillance pricing, preventing retailers from using personal data to charge different prices for essential groceries. The law, which takes effect in one year, also imposes a one-year moratorium on new electronic shelf labels and follows Maryland’s earlier effort. The measure arrives amid scrutiny of AI pricing, including an FTC investigation and refunds tied to Instacart’s practices.
Sony plans to end PS5 disc production in 2028 and has rolled out dynamic pricing on the PlayStation Store that can vary by region and user data, leading to potentially wide price differences for the same game. With a fully digital future, prices may be unpredictable and taxed like digital goods, a concern underscored by related lawsuits in California and the Netherlands.
Consumer Reports’ study of 174 volunteers pricing over 40 routes across 18 states found Uber and Lyft often quote markedly different prices for the exact same ride, with a median gap of about 50% and some routes showing fares from $25 to $65 for the same origin-destination. The differences persist even when requests are made within minutes of each other. While dynamic pricing and real-time conditions explain some variability, the report raises questions about potential personalized or ‘surveillance’ pricing. Both companies deny using personalized pricing, noting that prices reflect trip characteristics, demand, supply, and promotions. Experts advise comparing prices across apps to ensure the lowest fare.
New York lawmakers advanced a bill prohibiting using personal data to tailor prices for individual customers, effectively banning “surveillance pricing.” A companion bill to ban electronic shelf labels failed to pass in the Assembly. While the legislation protects loyalty programs, critics—including grocery groups and unions—warn it could disrupt legitimate discounts and prompt higher prices. The bills now go to Gov. Hochul for signature, with enforcement potentially by the Attorney General.
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis vetoed House Bill 26-1210, which would have cracked down on surveillance pricing, saying its broad scope could punish legitimate pricing and innocuous tech uses. Supporters argue the bill would curb discriminatory pricing based on personal data, while critics warn it could hinder price accuracy and innovation. The veto highlights ongoing tensions between consumer protection and algorithm-driven pricing, a debate mirrored by similar actions in other states and national polling that shows growing concern over such practices.
Colorado's House advanced HB 26-1210 to outlaw using personal data and algorithms to set individualized wages or product prices, while excluding loyalty programs and normal supply-demand fluctuations; the bill would make surveillance pricing a deceptive trade practice enforceable by the attorney general, prompting questions about breadth as it heads to the Senate.
Democratic lawmakers introduced the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2026 to ban surveillance and surge pricing in large grocery stores, require disclosure of facial-recognition use, and prohibit electronic shelf labels. The bill aims to prevent price discrimination and follows growing legislative interest after studies suggested price variation and industry experiments; the UFCW supports the effort, while previous administrations eyed a broader FTC study on the issue.
Instacart has ceased using AI to experiment with variable pricing for the same items after reports revealed customers were paying different prices for identical products, with some experiencing up to 23% higher costs. The company acknowledged the issue and stated that shoppers will now see consistent prices for the same items within the same store, although prices may still vary across different stores. The pricing experiments, part of a revenue-maximization strategy involving AI, were criticized for potentially costing consumers up to $1,200 annually, leading Instacart to halt the practice.
The Federal Trade Commission has filed a lawsuit against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits, accusing it of illegal price discrimination. The FTC claims that Southern Glazer's offered significantly better prices to large chains like Costco and Kroger compared to smaller businesses, violating the Robinson-Patman Act. This alleged practice has reportedly harmed smaller retailers' ability to compete, leading to fewer choices and higher prices for consumers. The lawsuit aims to restore fair competition and enforce the law.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit against Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits, for allegedly violating the Robinson-Patman Act by engaging in illegal price discrimination. The FTC claims Southern Glazer's charged small, independent retailers significantly higher prices than large chains, harming competition and consumer choice. The lawsuit seeks to ensure fair pricing practices and restore competitive balance in the market, benefiting consumers with more choices and potentially lower prices.