Surveillance pricing—the algorithmic practice of using personal data to determine individualized costs for goods and services—is widespread in California, according to Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego). He warns that this system is actively impacting consumers across the state, and Black Californians could be specifically targeted.
Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveillance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.
“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenomenon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29.
On June 22, the bill passed out of the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee with a 5-2 vote and was re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary for consideration. On May 27, the Assembly voted to advance AB 2564 with a 42-21 vote.
Currently, there is no precise public data quantifying how many Black residents in California are actively affected by surveillance pricing. However, because the practice leans heavily on ZIP codes and localized demographic tracking, algorithmic pricing models frequently result in higher costs for Black and non-white communities compared to others, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital space.
Justin Brookman, a public-interest lawyer, supports AB 2564. His organization is an official sponsor of the bill. He advocates on behalf of Consumer Reports.
“We found that people shopping for the exact same item at the exact same time, and the exact same store, were getting different prices. In some cases, up to 23% higher,” Brookman said. “So, one person looking at a jar of Skippy peanut butter, it was $2.99. Another person, same exact time, it was $3.69.”
AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coalition of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consumer-friendly discounts, and creates costly litigation risks for small businesses.
Chamber of Progress – a tech industry association that lobbies for public policies that expand digital commerce and technological advances – says that banning data-driven personalization would wipe away targeted digital coupons that families count on to prolong their budgets.
In a March 18 written letter to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, Robert Singleton, senior director of Policy and Public Affairs for California and the U.S. West at the Chamber of Progress, urged the body to oppose AB 2564.
“We share the legislature’s concern about affordability,” Singleton wrote. “The cost of living is the top issue facing American families, and we understand the impulse to ensure consumers are getting a fair deal. But this bill risks backfiring on the families it aims to help.
Assemblymember Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) supported and voted for the bill in the Assembly on May 27, but she still has questions about a “litigation risk” that could be costly.
“Every business or retailer that is spending their time battling courts is spending resources, which drives the cost up for everyone,” said Wilson, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).
The post Surveillance Pricing Fight: State Senate Debates Bill Banning Retailers from Using AI to Set Prices Based on a Buyer’s Profile appeared first on BlackPressUSA.
