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 Califor-nians could be specifically targeted.
Ward’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2564, the Surveil-lance Pricing Act, aims to prohibit businesses from using this practice.
“Surveillance pricing is a growing phenom-enon that a lot of people don’t realize is already happening,” Ward told California Black Media (CBM) at the State Capitol on June 29. “This has been going on for several years where large cor-porations are getting your information from cell phones, home computers, and basically, those data points about who you are as an individual.”
Ward aims to ban this practice, which is already widely used by large retailers, grocers, and service providers.
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 demo-graphic 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 defend-ing civil liberties in the digital space.
“I want to make sure everyone is treated equally. Just because you live in a community that may have fewer resources or options to shop doesn’t mean that you have to be paying higher prices because you’re held captive,” Ward said. “They know this about you, and they can hold you captive. That’s where we hold corpora-tions accountable.”
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, where he serves as the director of Technology Policy.
“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 percent 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. Over time, those sorts of variations add up.”
AB 2564 is primarily opposed by a coali-tion of corporations and technology industry associations. They argue that the bill’s language is overly broad, outlaws common consum-er-friendly discounts, and creates costly litiga-tion risks for small businesses.
