The concept of "surveillance pricing" highlights a pervasive issue within modern business models: the monetization of personal data to maximize corporate profits. This involves systematically harvesting, collating, and storing vast amounts of personal information, then using it to influence consumer behavior, including pricing. ### The Mechanics of Surveillance Pricing Surveillance pricing manifests when companies present identical products to different individuals at varying prices, based on their collected personal data. This practice is a core concern for organizations like the **EFF**, which actively supports **A.B. 2654**, authored by Assemblymember **Chris Ward**, designed to ban this potentially exploitative method. ### San Francisco's Stalled Resolution The **EFF**, based in San Francisco, initially welcomed a resolution introduced by the **San Francisco Board of Supervisors** to support **A.B. 2654**. However, this support has since stalled, following an email from the **San Francisco Chamber of Commerce** that raised criticisms, which the **EFF** describes as "well-worn and debunked concerns." The **EFF** has since sent a letter to the Supervisors, urging them to reconsider their stance. ### FTC Findings and Consumer Impact Banning surveillance pricing is seen as a crucial step for consumer protection. The **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)** has previously identified instances where companies set higher prices based on personal information. A notable example cited by the FTC illustrates how a consumer profiled as a new parent might be intentionally shown higher-priced baby thermometers in search results, influenced by their residential zip code and time of purchase. This suggests that in moments of urgent need, such as a parent searching for a thermometer late at night, companies may exploit personal data to charge inflated prices. ### Privacy as a Fundamental Right The **EFF** asserts that privacy is a human right, not a commodity to be traded or sacrificed for different prices on everyday goods. The organization has consistently opposed "pay-for-privacy" schemes, where consumers are charged more for refusing to have their personal data processed. Surveillance pricing is viewed as another iteration of this problematic practice, undermining the principle that privacy rights should not be contingent on an individual's income or economic choices. While some defenders of surveillance pricing, including the **San Francisco Chamber of Commerce**, argue that it could lead to lower prices for certain consumers, research indicates a mixed outcome, often creating "winners and losers" based on factors like willingness to switch products or the accuracy of underlying data, which itself can be flawed. ### Addressing Concerns and Bill Clarity **A.B. 2654** is designed to be clear and comprehensive in its scope. The bill explicitly states that "a retailer shall not engage in surveillance pricing" and provides a precise definition: "a customized price for a good for a specific consumer or group of consumers, based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance," including data acquired from third parties. The bill also includes three key carve-outs to ensure it does not inadvertently disrupt legitimate loyalty programs and discounts: * Price differences based solely on the costs associated with providing goods to different consumers. * Discounts offered to consumers terminating a service. * Conspicuously posted discounts uniformly available based on easily met criteria (e.g., mailing list sign-up), membership in broadly defined groups (e.g., seniors), or participation in loyalty programs. This means that an opt-in senior discount for a movie ticket is permissible; what the bill targets is the systematic collection of personal information to determine an individual's senior status and subsequently manipulate their pricing options. ### A Call to Action The **EFF** emphasizes that surveillance pricing, much like online behavioral advertising, incentivizes businesses to collect and monetize vast amounts of personal data. Both practices contribute to the creation of detailed consumer dossiers, used to manipulate economic choices through targeted advertisements and personalized pricing. The **EFF** urges the **San Francisco Board of Supervisors** to join the growing coalition of groups supporting **A.B. 2654**, advocating against the exploitation of personal information for differential pricing. For further details, the **EFF**'s letter to the Supervisors is available [here](https://www.eff.org/document/letter-sf-bos-re-surveillance).