Robbed by Your Own Data?

Surveillance pricing is this month’s news, and it may be hurting your wallet more than you know.

The next time a price jumps on your phone, do not assume the market moved.

Maybe the price moved because you did.

Maybe the app knows you are standing in the store parking lot. Maybe it knows you searched for the same flight three times. It may know your ZIP code, your shopping history, what kind of phone you own, how loyal you are, and how unlikely you are to walk away.

That is the ugly promise of surveillance pricing. It does not charge what a product is worth. It charges what an algorithm thinks you will surrender.

Politicians hold hearings, miss deadlines, and congratulate themselves for demanding warning labels. The machinery is already running.

On August 19, the Federal Trade Commission opened public comment on a proposed policy saying companies may violate federal law when they secretly use personal data to set individualized prices. The comment period closes September 18. The agency also admitted the political failure at the center of its proposal: it says it lacks authority to ban personalized pricing in every circumstance (Federal Trade Commission).

California lawmakers passed a broad surveillance-pricing ban through both chambers, then let it die because the Assembly missed an August 31 midnight deadline. The bill never reached the governor (Gizmodo).

The technology is sprinting. Government is tying its shoes and drafting another disclosure.

The price tag is studying you

Dynamic pricing is not new. Airlines charge more near holidays. Rideshare fares rise when demand spikes. Hotels adjust rates when rooms fill.

Surveillance pricing crosses a different line. The FTC describes it as using a consumer’s characteristics and behavior to set an individualized price. The data can include location, demographics, credit history, browsing history, shopping history, and even mouse movements on a webpage (Federal Trade Commission).

The agency’s 2026 proposal goes further. Pricing systems can draw on data revealing medical conditions, political and religious views, sexual interests, disposable income, purchase history, and shopping habits collected by other companies (FTC proposed policy statement).

This is not the price of oranges rising because a freeze damaged the crop. This is a machine looking over your shoulder and asking: How badly does this person need what we are selling?

The FTC started pulling records from eight pricing intermediaries in 2024. Its preliminary summaries covered documents from six: Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Company. The agency did not accuse those firms of wrongdoing. But it described a market serving at least 250 clients with tools that can sort people by “willingness to pay,” “coupon inclination,” loyalty, geolocation, and past purchases. Some vendors claimed revenue gains of 2 to 5 percent and margin gains of 1 to 4 percent (FTC research summaries).

That extra money does not fall from heaven. You pay it.

In 2022, California district attorneys reached a $5 million settlement with Target over allegations that its app charged different prices depending on a shopper’s location. One reported example involved a television priced at $499.99 before the shopper entered the parking lot and $599.99 after arrival (Los Angeles Times).

A joint investigation by Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found Instacart shoppers could see price differences of up to 23 percent for identical groceries from the same store at the same time. New York Attorney General Letitia James demanded records from the company in January (New York Attorney General).

Instacart says the differences came from randomized A/B tests, not personal or demographic data, and that it ended the tests (Instacart).

The denial matters. So does your grocery bill. A family does not feel less cheated because a corporation calls the price difference an experiment.

They turn your loyalty against you

The lawsuits are arriving.

In April, travelers filed a proposed class action against JetBlue in federal court. The complaint alleges the airline used trackers and personal data to raise fares after customers searched and returned. One customer described a $230 one-day jump while trying to travel for a funeral. JetBlue denies using personal data or artificial intelligence to price tickets. No court has ruled that the allegations are true (Reuters).

In June, a Washington Post subscriber filed another proposed class action. The complaint alleges the newspaper harvested reading habits, clicks, cursor movements, device information, location, and inferred income to estimate what each subscriber would tolerate at renewal. It claims longtime subscribers paid more than new customers. Those allegations also remain untested (Blink v. WP Company complaint).

Look at the theory running through both cases. Your urgency becomes their opening. Your loyalty becomes your weak spot. The more a company learns about you, the better it becomes at locating the point where habit, fear, grief, or inconvenience defeats your willingness to say no.

This should be a bipartisan political emergency. Republicans preach individual liberty. Democrats preach corporate accountability. Neither principle means much if corporations can build secret dossiers on citizens and turn those dossiers into private taxes at the checkout screen.

New York already requires certain sellers to post a blunt notice: “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.” Violations can bring penalties of up to $1,000 (New York Attorney General).

Good. Tell people.

But a warning label is not protection. Americans have spent years clicking “I agree” beneath privacy policies designed to exhaust the human will. Disclosure without prohibition is a permission slip written in legalese.

The rule should be simple. Personal data may lower a price with your clear consent. It must never raise one. Companies should disclose the baseline price and the factors that changed it. Regulators should be allowed to audit the algorithm. You should have the right to sue.

Congress also needs to pass a national privacy law with teeth. A pricing ban built on top of an unrestricted market for personal data is a locked front door with the windows wide open.

Your browsing history is yours. Your location is yours. Your grief, illness, paycheck, loyalty, and desperation are not corporate discount codes in reverse.

If a company needs to know how much pressure you can bear before setting the price, it is not serving the market.

It is casing the customer.