Lawmakers, regulators target surveillance pricing of groceries

Nov 4

Across the political spectrum, the practice is seen as a ‘rip-off’ and ‘exploitation’

By Forrest J.H.

Some of the largest grocery stores in the country may seek to use surveillance to determine how much to charge individual shoppers for what is in their carts.

The prospect has brought together lawmakers across the political spectrum looking to prevent a bleak vision of the future where the price of groceries is determined not by what is in a shopper’s basket, but by the shopper’s income, gender, behavior and a slew of other characteristics. It is a rare moment of bipartisan legislative action in a political era defined by paralyzingly bitter divisions, underhanded corporate maneuvering, and an increasingly frustrated working class.

Whether it is called surveillance, or dynamic, or surge pricing depends on who is talking about it. Whatever you call it, the tactic involves charging different prices at different times for the same product. Opponents often call it surveillance pricing. Proponents often call it dynamic pricing. Profiteers often call it surge pricing.

It is a familiar concept taken to a new extreme.

Most people understand plane tickets in the middle of the holiday season are going to be more expensive than other times of year, because demand for those tickets increases as the amount of available seats on the plane stays the same. Another example, the price of tomatoes regularly spiking when they are out of season; people love tomatoes in all seasons, but tomatoes themselves don’t love all seasons.

Walmart, Kroger and Wegmans have experimented with digital price tags, drawing the attention of concerned lawmakers and regulators in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and beyond. Those states have since passed laws restricting the practice of surveillance pricing.

Last year, Virginia state Sen. Russett Perry proposed a similar law that failed to make much progress in the state legislature. Sen. Perry says she will introduce it again, and expects it to see more support this time around.

“Our private habits and personal information should not be used against us,” Perry told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “If you and your neighbor are standing five feet apart, buying the exact same thing from the exact same store, you should pay the exact same price. A company shouldn’t charge you more because it decided you can afford to pay more.”

However, Perry’s bill would allow businesses to use a customer’s purchase history to offer discounts.

At the federal level, Rep. Eugene Vindman, a Democrat who represents Virginia’s Seventh Congressional District, has proposed a law to take on surveillance grocery pricing that he has called the No Personal Data in Grocery Pricing Act.

“It’s great to see leaders of government at every level take this issue seriously,” Vindman told the Times-Dispatch.

On the other end of the political spectrum, Republican James Comer, who represents Kentucky’s First District, wrote to the Federal Trade Commission chair in September expressing concerns around surveillance pricing.

“Given the rise of ‘surge’ or ‘dynamic’ pricing practices that result in rapidly fluctuating prices, it is difficult for consumers to know if they are being charged a price truly based on supply and demand or if the price they see is set by an algorithm using personalized data to determine the consumer’s maximum ‘willingness to pay,’” wrote Comer, who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mark Warner, a Democrat who represents Virginia in the US Senate, called out surveillance grocery pricing in campaign ads.

“In the Senate, I’m going after these companies to stop the rip-off, because this isn’t innovation. It’s exploitation,” Sen. Warner says in the ad.

Josh Hawley, a top Republican who represents Missouri in the Senate, has led a subcommittee hearing on surveillance pricing and is working with Democrats on a federal law.

“This will be one of the biggest rip-offs in American history unless we do something,” Sen. Hawley told Nexstar.

Surveillance grocery pricing may seem universally unpopular, but at least one voice in support has labeled it a “best friends for consumers and businesses,” arguing the practice could stimulate competition, drive down prices, and reduce waste.

Conservative economist Les Rubin writes that if consumers like taking advantage of low prices, they should also tolerate it when prices rise.

“Dynamic pricing tells consumers, businesses and producers what is happening and how they should respond,” Rubin wrote in a syndicated column for Inside Sources. “It is nothing more than supply-and-demand pricing in real time.”

Rubin goes on to note the concerns around abuse of the practice as “legitimate,” but that existing laws should already address those concerns and a new law would be bad for marketplace competition.

Virginia state Sen. Perry, who proposed a state-level ban on surveillance pricing, says the whole issue highlights problems with the concentration of power while bringing together people who don’t feel like they have much recourse.

“I do think attitudes are shifting, and you can see that in the traction these protections are getting across the country. People are becoming much more aware of just how much of their personal information companies have access to, and AI has dramatically expanded what companies can do with it,” Perry said. “I think that’s why these protections have found support across party lines.”

###

THIS ARTICLE’S INGREDIENTS

Inside Sources

Dynamic Pricing Is a Consumer’s Best Friend

By Les Rubin

July 30, 2026

https://dcjournal.com/point-dynamic-pricing-is-a-consumers-best-friend/

Inside Sources

Price the Product, Not the Person

By Carol Evans

July 30, 2026

https://dcjournal.com/counterpoint-price-the-product-not-the-person/