{"id":329777,"date":"2026-05-23T21:41:08","date_gmt":"2026-05-23T21:41:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/329777\/"},"modified":"2026-05-23T21:41:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-23T21:41:08","slug":"why-surveillance-pricing-bans-are-suddenly-gaining-traction-this-year-and-not-just-in-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/329777\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Surveillance Pricing Bans Are Suddenly Gaining Traction This Year (And Not Just in California)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The\u00a0Santa Barbara Independent\u00a0republishes stories from\u00a0CalMatters.org<\/a>\u00a0on state and local issues impacting readers in Santa Barbara County.<\/p>\n

Last year, California lawmakers backed off on a plan to do something about surveillance pricing, the practice of using someone\u2019s personal information to determine what they pay.<\/p>\n

This year \u2014 with voters across the country facing rising inflation and an affordability crisis \u2014 lawmakers in California and in other states are cracking down.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A proposed surveillance pricing ban cleared a key vote in the California Legislature Thursday. It would forbid retailers from altering prices based on information about shoppers like their age, gender, or location.<\/p>\n

Algorithms used for surveillance pricing can predict things like\u00a0whether a shopper is desperate<\/a>\u00a0to buy or how much money they have. The data they use draws on personal information gathered through apps, web browsing history, and data brokers.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Attorney General Rob Bonta opened an\u00a0investigation into surveillance pricing by businesses in January<\/a>\u00a0but has not released results or commented on it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The legislation that moved forward,\u00a0Assembly Bill 2564<\/a>, is one of more than a dozen AI-related bills, and hundreds of bills in total, that faced the possibility of elimination as the Legislature\u2019s appropriations committees decided whether to hold them, a practice that\u00a0effectively killed 25% of all bills up for consideration this year<\/a>. The bill still needs to clear the full Assembly and Senate in order to make it to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom this fall.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe last thing anyone needs is to be charged higher prices based on their personal data,\u201d said the bill\u2019s author, San Diego Democratic Assemblymember Chris Ward, in a March briefing. \u201cThis practice hits hardest for low-income individuals and shoppers and those with limited shopping options.\u201d<\/p>\n

Roughly half of\u00a0U.S. states this year are considering<\/a>\u00a0bills to regulate the ways companies offer multiple prices for a single good. In the past month alone, three states passed bills to ban surveillance pricing. In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore signed a law that bans\u00a0using the practice to price groceries<\/a>, and in recent days lawmakers in Colorado and Connecticut passed their own surveillance pricing bans.<\/p>\n

California lawmakers last year backed off on a\u00a0similar bill<\/a>\u00a0to ban surveillance pricing. It did not reach Newsom\u2019s desk.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This year, pressure to act on surveillance pricing is building as voters across the country cite affordability as a top concern ahead of midterm elections this fall.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This week, inflation rose to 3.8%,\u00a0outpacing wage gains<\/a>, and prices continued to rise for gas,\u00a0groceries<\/a>, and other goods. A\u00a0Gallup poll<\/a>\u00a0released two weeks ago found that 55% of Americans say their financial situation is getting worse, a record high since the polling company began asking Americans about that in 2001.<\/p>\n

The recent spate of state surveillance pricing bans is significant after no states passed any such bans last year, said Grace Gedye, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports who tracks efforts to regulate surveillance pricing by state governments. Consumer Reports is a cosponsor of AB 2564 and has\u00a0partnered<\/a>\u00a0with The Markup, a part of CalMatters, on reporting projects.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s unclear just how widespread surveillance pricing is today but numerous examples of the practice have come to light.<\/p>\n

A\u00a02025 Federal Trade Commission study<\/a>\u00a0found that surveillance pricing can lead to targeted exploitation of consumers who are willing to pay higher costs like first-time parents or first-time car buyers and that the practice can lead to inferences about what price a person is willing to pay based on their location or IP address.<\/p>\n

A 2024\u00a0White House study<\/a>\u00a0estimated that price-fixing algorithms cost apartment renters $3.8 billion in 2023, amounting to\u00a0higher rents nationwide<\/a>, including $99 more a month in San Diego, $62 more a month in San Francisco, and $34 a month more in Los Angeles.<\/p>\n

A\u00a0December 2025 Instacart investigation<\/a>\u00a0by Consumer Reports and partners found that the company charged hundreds of people, including at least 53 who lived in California, different prices even if they were shopping for groceries in the same store at the same time. Two weeks later, Instacartannounced plans to stop the experimental practice<\/a>\u00a0and attorneys general in California and New York launched investigations.<\/p>\n

Other prominent examples:<\/p>\n

Target\u00a0paid $5 million to settle a suit<\/a>\u00a0from San Diego County\u2019s district attorney over its alleged use of location for surveillance pricing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A\u00a02025 investigation by SFGATE<\/a>\u00a0found that Bay Area residents get charged more for hotel rooms by websites like\u00a0booking.com<\/a>\u00a0than people in less affluent areas, including $500 more a night for a hotel room in Manhattan.<\/p>\n

Gedye argues that a surveillance pricing ban is necessary because it\u2019s unreasonable to place the onus on consumers to protect themselves when they\u2019re busy trying to live their lives and buy groceries, and because laws that require disclosure laws are ineffective.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The California Chamber of Commerces and business groups representing retailers, tech companies, and others oppose AB 2564. In a letter, some of them argue that the bill would keep stores from offering discounts, is complicated to comply with, and would drive up costs. The bill allows discounts for customers who do things like sign up for mailing lists or participate in loyalty programs.<\/p>\n

Samuel Levine, who previously served as director of the Federal Trade Commission\u2019s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at a recent UC Berkeley School of Law symposium that people must reject the idea that surveillance pricing is inevitable.<\/p>\n

\u201cWorried about algorithmic wages? Set a minimum wage. Worried about algorithmic pricing? Ban it. Worried about algorithmic scheduling? Ban it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Christopher D\u2019Angelo, who previously worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and now works for the New York Attorney General, said his office supports a bill in the state legislature that would\u00a0ban surveillance pricing<\/a>\u00a0and electronic shelf labels in grocery stores. The state of New York passed a law last year that requires companies disclose to consumers when they use surveillance pricing, but \u201cby virtue of the fact that we\u2019re supporting a ban on surveillance pricing we can see it\u2019s not a solved problem.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eleanor Blume, special assistant attorney general in the California Department of Justice, said the affordability crisis is driving an urgency to act. She said it may be that a new law that bans algorithmic pricing is needed, but the state can influence how businesses use the technology by clarifying when her office will take action based on existing antitrust, privacy, or unfair competition laws. Blume said the AG\u2019s office looked into New York surveillance pricing law before launching its January investigation and continues to discuss privacy law related issues with state officials in Colorado.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think we\u2019re at a moment now where states are able to do phenomenal work that can have effective outcomes for people,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Santa
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Nine-Run
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The\u00a0Santa Barbara Independent\u00a0republishes stories from\u00a0CalMatters.org\u00a0on state and local issues impacting readers in Santa Barbara County. Last year, California…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":329778,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[7,9,8],"class_list":["post-329777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329777","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=329777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329777\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/329778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=329777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=329777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=329777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}