Maryland’s ban spotlights ‘surveillance pricing’ debate

Maryland moved first to prohibit surveillance pricing in April, as at least 40 bills across 24 states seek to limit or ban the practice. Supporters say it can power personalized discounts, while opponents argue the same data-driven systems can lead to unfair,

For shoppers comparing prices online, the unease isn’t theoretical anymore. In April, Maryland became the first state to prohibit surveillance pricing—an approach that uses personal data to potentially change what different customers pay for the same item.

The timing has helped turn a technical-sounding issue into a consumer flashpoint. Across the country, legislative momentum is building: at least 40 bills in 24 states are aimed at limiting or banning surveillance pricing. And in May, U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member on the House energy and commerce committee, launched an inquiry into the practice.

At the center of the fight is a simple question shoppers feel in their wallets: if a store knows what you searched for, should it be able to charge you more?

Surveillance pricing defined—and where the data comes from

Surveillance pricing is using data to potentially alter a price based on the customer’s behavior, said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.

Sometimes that data is provided directly by shoppers through a loyalty program membership. Other times, it is collected by the company from a shopper’s browsing or purchases, Owens said.

Owens described the practice in blunt terms. “I like to think of surveillance pricing as the practice of spying on customers in order to potentially overcharge them. ” she told MISRYOUM. She pointed to how common online shopping has made tracking behavior—what a shopper puts in a cart. what they click on. what they hover over. and what they buy frequently. particularly when they are signed into a loyalty program.

Her characterization is grounded in how shoppers experience modern commerce: much of it happens on screens, where clicks and timing can be recorded with ease.

Public opinion leans against it—but not for one simple reason

In a recent survey of voters conducted by Groundwork Collaborative, 76% of respondents said they supported bans on surveillance pricing. MISRYOUM was given an exclusive first look at the survey results.

The survey also tested what voters believe about fairness when discounts are personalized. Seventy-two percent of voters said they believed discounts should be equal for all customers, even if that means smaller bargains.

Support for loyalty-program personalization was higher at first. Eighty-three percent of voters said they supported companies using loyalty programs for personalized discounts. But support dropped to 51% when voters learned that personal data was used to determine which customers receive those deals.

That split—between “discounts” and “personal data deciding who gets them”—captures why the debate is so emotionally charged for consumers. Even people who like deals can feel differently when the mechanism feels invisible and individualized.

Maryland’s move didn’t end the dispute

Maryland’s April prohibition is the most immediate legislative milestone mentioned in this debate. But opponents argued the law did not go far enough in protecting consumers, with Consumer Reports raising that criticism.

The disagreement is about what counts as meaningful protection. The existence of dozens of bills in other states—at least 40 bills in 24 states looking to limit or ban surveillance pricing—suggests lawmakers aren’t satisfied with a narrow fix.

What supporters say is being misunderstood

Supporters of surveillance pricing argue the technology is being unfairly lumped together as something bad.

“We can all agree that people shouldn’t be charged a different price for a gallon of milk than their neighbor based on who they are,” Drew Ambrogi, policy manager for Chamber of Progress, a tech industry policy coalition, told MISRYOUM.

Ambrogi said the technology used to offer benefits to customers—such as discounts—is “what’s in the crosshairs” of the pending legislative bills across the country.

He argued that data-driven pricing can enhance competition and deliver real benefits. Examples he gave include grocery-loyalty program discounts and small businesses offering a 10% discount when an item is added to an online shopping cart to incentivize completing a sale.

Ambrogi also said there is “very little evidence” that specific shoppers are seeing price increases because of surveillance pricing.

Critics counter that the potential for targeted price discrimination is the point—and that recent findings raise alarms about how easily it can happen.

Federal Trade Commission findings feed the concern

In early 2025, initial findings of a Federal Trade Commission surveillance pricing study found that a person’s precise location or browser history could frequently be used to target individual consumers with different and sometimes higher prices for the same goods and services.

Those findings help explain why opponents see the practice less as a harmless marketing tool and more as a lever that can be pulled without consumers’ meaningful awareness.

For shoppers, the debate is already personal

On Reddit, discussions about surveillance pricing have been sharp. One user wrote. “So here is our future. where we are going to be bled dry on an individual basis by corporations- all based on our naiveite to allow all our personal digital information and habits to be bought and used against us daily.”.

Another user pushed back, calling state bans “throwing the baby out with the bath water…Legislate the bad behaviors, don’t ban the tool.”

The contrast is striking: one side fears a steady, individualized cost squeeze; the other worries lawmakers are trying to ban the wrong thing.

Dynamic pricing gets tangled in the argument

Part of the confusion comes from how often surveillance pricing is lumped together with dynamic pricing.

Dynamic pricing is often called surge pricing—a price that increases based on supply and demand. Owens said the terms dynamic pricing and surveillance pricing have been “muddied up,” and some people are starting to use them interchangeably when they are different.

But Owens said both practices can lead to increased prices.

Her framing links the consumer anger to two deeply felt frustrations. “Surveillance pricing is really at the intersection of two things that Americans really hate: being ripped off and being spied on,” Owens said.

In an affordability crisis, Owens added, it doesn’t just raise bills—it can feel unfair and unpredictable. “This adds insult to injury; not just high prices, but unfair prices, unpredictable prices.”

The result is a policy fight playing out in real time: states are moving, lawmakers are asking questions, and consumers are trying to understand whether personalized commerce is a legitimate discount strategy or a new way to charge them more—one data point at a time.

surveillance pricing Maryland ban dynamic pricing FTC study Groundwork Collaborative Frank Pallone Chamber of Progress loyalty programs personalized discounts consumer data