All articles tagged with #surveillance pricing
The Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to regulate personalized pricing has triggered a sharp debate between consumer advocates and tech industry groups. While consumer groups urge stricter rules against algorithmic price discrimination, industry representatives argue that such regulations could eliminate beneficial discounts and lack empirical support.
The Seattle City Council voted 7-2 on September 22 to pass the Fair Pricing and Transparency Act, making Seattle the first U.S. city to ban personalized grocery pricing. The ordinance prohibits large retailers from using personal data, such as browsing history or income levels, to set individual prices for essential goods. While the bill allows universal discounts for groups like seniors and veterans, it bans algorithmic price discrimination that could charge different shoppers different amounts for the same item. The legislation now awaits Mayor Katie Wilson's signature.
An AFL-CIO Tech Institute analysis argues that universal adoption of electronic shelf labels in U.S. grocers could cost tens of thousands of jobs and billions in lost wages while enabling rapid algorithmic price changes that may raise grocery costs; the report calls for banning ESLs and surveillance pricing as several states move to restrict the technology, and unions warn workers will face gradual wage cuts as labels replace manual price updates.
Consumer Reports found that two people requesting the same ride at the same time can be shown very different prices by Uber and Lyft, due to AI-based pricing. Some displayed prices are historical comparisons, not deals. Both companies say riders’ actual fare share is lower than CR’s findings. Maryland and Connecticut have enacted restrictions on surveillance pricing, while California, Pennsylvania, and New York are considering bans.
A Productrise study claims Google's AI Mode lists the same products about 21.6% more expensive and with greater visibility than traditional search, suggesting AI-driven shopping could influence price exposure and seller selection. Google says pricing relies on the same Shopping Graph, but the findings raise questions about potential price discrimination and how AI Mode's rankings impact consumer choice, though shoppers often click the lowest price in practice.
California lawmakers are debating Assembly Bill 2564 to ban surveillance pricing—where prices are set using personal data and AI—amid a JetBlue lawsuit and FTC enforcement signals. The bill would prohibit retailers from using personal data to price goods, a move applauded as protecting fairness and privacy but criticized for potentially reducing discounts or lowering price competition. The debate mirrors actions in New Jersey and New York, while Colorado’s governor vetoed a broader similar bill. Studies on personalized pricing show mixed effects: it can increase seller profits while occasionally delivering lower prices to some buyers, and a lack of price transparency can leave consumers guessing.
The FTC under the Trump administration is seeking public comment on a policy draft that reframes what others call surveillance pricing as 'personalized pricing,' warning that using personal data to set prices could violate the FTC Act. The move shifts framing from the Biden era’s probe, signals enforcement intent, and reflects ongoing debate about AI-driven pricing, disclosure requirements, and regulatory action amid bipartisan concern over data-driven 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 Fair Price Protection Act bans surveillance pricing and imposes a one-year moratorium on electronic shelf labels, pausing dynamic pricing while the state studies the technology; existing ESLs aren’t banned, loyalty programs remain allowed, and the rule goes into effect February 1, 2027.
Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act, banning surveillance pricing and prohibiting grocery stores from using shoppers’ digital history, biometric, or genetic data to tailor prices. The law creates a private right of action for consumers and allows the state to sue retailers, with penalties up to $10,000 for a first offense and $20,000 for subsequent violations. It also pauses electronic shelf labels for a year while the state studies potential misuse and takes effect Aug. 1, 2027. The measure does not ban dynamic pricing or loyalty programs, and makes New Jersey an early adopter of limits on personalized pricing.
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.
New Jersey approved the bipartisan Fair Price Protection Act to ban AI/algorithm-driven and surveillance-based pricing in grocery stores and to pause electronic shelf labels for at least a year, awaiting Governor Sherrill’s signature. The bill includes exemptions for loyalty programs and certain discounts and mirrors similar moves in Maryland and Connecticut, as lawmakers argue it protects consumers amid rising grocery costs while opponents worry about regulatory consequences and job impact.
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 a bill that would have banned companies from using data-driven, individualized pricing and wages (surveillance pricing). Polis said the measure is too broad and could penalize legitimate uses of technology, though it would have included some discounts. It’s his second veto on a surveillance-pricing bill in a year. The veto comes as other states consider or enact similar bans, Maryland has a narrower grocery-pricing law, and consumer groups urge federal action amid FTC studies on the practice.
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.