Maryland becomes first state to ban surveillance pricing in grocery stores | Technology
Maryland became the first state in the United States to ban surveillance pricing in grocery stores.
Maryland law prohibits grocery stores and third-party delivery services from using a person’s personal data to set higher prices. Gov. Wes Moore signed the measure into law on Tuesday. “At a time when technology can predict what we need, when we need it, when we’re going to pay for it, and also when we’re going to pay more for it, and we’re watching how big corporations are using that analytics against us to make record profits, Maryland isn’t just stepping back. Maryland is moving forward because we’re going to protect our people,” Moore said. in question at the bill signing ceremony.
As stores engage in surveillance pricing, they are rapidly changing the cost of products based on consumer data, including location, internet search history and demographic information. This means buyers pay different prices for the same products purchased at the same time. Critics of this method, also known as dynamic pricing, say that in doing so businesses are effectively charging each person. most things they are willing to pay.
Maryland’s new law focuses on grocery chains, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documented Examples of surveillance pricing at stores selling clothing, beauty products, household goods, and hardware. Consumer groups say there’s additional urgency when it comes to grocery stores, given that it affects Americans’ ability to access affordable food.
Bills under consideration in Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Illinois and New Jersey could likewise regulate surveillance pricing. The US federal government also weighed in on this issue. The Federal Trade Commission, under the Biden administration, launched an investigation into these pricing practices and first findings published From a study last January that found companies use a wide range of personal data when setting varying prices for buyers. But the current administration is unlikely to take tough action on surveillance pricing, given that current FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson called the previous administration’s report a matter of urgency. Tom McBrien, counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic), says states like Maryland need to take action in this context of federal inaction.
Anti-surveillance advocates say the new law is full of industry changes that will make it harder to protect consumers. They welcomed Maryland’s focus on enforcement but said they were concerned about loopholes that have emerged as a result of industry lobbying. “We are excited that Maryland is taking this step, but we have serious concerns,” McBrien says. “Exemptions allow for other ways to achieve the same result that are more difficult for consumers to detect.”
Maryland law includes exemptions for loyalty programs and promotional offers. Although the law prohibits setting higher prices through surveillance pricing, it does not address the issue of lowering prices. If a company raises its prices for everyone and then offers personalized discounts, “all of a sudden you get the same result,” McBrien says.
Consumer Reports, a nonprofit organization that investigates Instacart’s pricing, said in a statement that it appreciated Moore’s prioritization of the issue but condemned the law’s “weak enforcement provisions.”
“We urge Maryland lawmakers to revisit the law next year to create stronger consumer protections and eliminate loopholes that undermine the intent of this law,” he said. Instacart announced Consumer Reports says grocery stores will no longer use technology that allows them to charge different prices to different customers for the same product investigation He revealed the app last year.
The harshest critics of Maryland’s new law believe it not only lacks enforcement but also erodes existing rights. In particular, they point to a provision that gives only the state attorney general, not individuals, the authority to enforce the law. “The private right of action is a fundamental part of liability,” says Lee Hepner, senior counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. “A meaningful threat of sanctions is the only effective deterrent to violating the law.”
“The biggest threat to the Maryland bill is that other states will view it as a model bill that they should replicate in their jurisdictions,” Hepner says. “As we work to get this legislation right in states from Colorado to California to New York, it is critical for us that the Maryland bill is not held up as a model, but is actually recognized as an industry-written license to engage in ongoing discrimination.”
