The pervasive collection and monetization of personal data, from browsing history to physical location, has given rise to a concerning practice known as surveillance pricing. This involves businesses offering different prices for the same product to different individuals, meticulously tailored based on their digital footprint and personal information. ### Understanding Surveillance Pricing In 2025, the **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)** released a report detailing how six companies provided surveillance pricing services to hundreds of retailers, including grocery stores and apparel outlets. The report highlighted that these practices leverage extensive customer data, including browsing history, physical location, and shopping transaction records. This data, sourced from vendors themselves, service providers, or third-party data brokers, enables businesses to segment customers and offer individualized pricing, much like targeted advertising. Former **FTC** Chair **Lina Khan** articulated the scope of this practice: “Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services – from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage.” While the **FTC**'s public comment portal on surveillance pricing has since closed, the **California Attorney General** has initiated its own investigation into the practice. ### Real-World Examples of Price Discrimination Researchers have uncovered numerous instances illustrating surveillance pricing in action: * **The Princeton Review** reportedly offered higher test prep prices to individuals in certain zip codes, disproportionately affecting Asian customers. * **Uber** and **Lyft** were found to charge higher prices for rides ending in predominantly non-white neighborhoods in Chicago. * **Tinder** reportedly offered older users (aged 30-49) higher prices for **Tinder Plus** compared to younger demographics (18-29). * **Orbitz** allegedly charged **Apple** computer users more for hotel rooms than those using other operating systems. * Hotel booking sites reportedly offered higher prices to travelers from San Francisco. * **Target** was observed charging higher prices to customers physically located within their stores compared to those shopping remotely. * **Staples** allegedly increased prices for customers residing further from competitors. ### Why Privacy Advocates Oppose Surveillance Pricing **EFF** and other privacy advocacy groups vehemently oppose surveillance pricing due to its multifaceted harms: 1. **Privacy Invasion**: The practice necessitates intrusive scrutiny of personal data, incentivizing businesses to collect as much information as possible. This data is often then sold to data brokers, further perpetuating the surveillance ecosystem. 2. **Equity Concerns**: Surveillance pricing can disproportionately impact vulnerable populations and people of color, as evidenced by the examples above where pricing algorithms led to discriminatory outcomes. 3. **Lack of Transparency**: Consumers are often unaware they are subject to individualized pricing, making it impossible to understand the rationale behind the prices they are offered. This opacity hinders consumer advocacy, meaningful price comparisons, and regulatory oversight. While some proponents argue that surveillance pricing can lead to lower prices for some consumers, studies suggest a mixed outcome with clear winners and losers. Furthermore, such pricing can be based on inaccurate data. **EFF** maintains that privacy is a fundamental human right, not a commodity to be traded. They reject 'pay-for-privacy' schemes, viewing surveillance pricing as another method for corporations to force consumers to compromise their privacy. ### California's Legislative Response **California's S.B. 2564** proposes a straightforward ban: “a retailer shall not engage in surveillance pricing.” The bill defines surveillance pricing as a customized price for a good, based wholly or partly on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance, including data acquired from third parties. The legislation empowers both state and local governments to initiate enforcement actions, seeking various remedies including monetary penalties. Additionally, individual consumers would be able to bring their own enforcement actions, providing a robust framework to challenge this practice. The bill represents a significant step towards safeguarding consumer privacy and promoting fair pricing practices in California.