Assembly advances bill to ban ‘surveillance pricing,’ sparking debate between retailers and consumer advocates

Assembly members on Tuesday passed AB 446, the Surveillance Pricing Protection Act, which makes it unlawful for businesses to use individualized "surveillance pricing" — pricing that changes for an individual consumer based on personal data collected about them — when charging different prices for the same product or service.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Marc Ward, told the Judiciary Committee the practice is already in use and disproportionately harms lower-income shoppers. “This gives companies the ability to change some prices in real time according to a customer's individualized data profile. I maintain this is predatory. It's discriminatory,” Ward said.

Supporters, including Consumer Watchdog and the UFCW Western States Council, said the bill protects basic fairness in a marketplace increasingly driven by targeted algorithms. Kim Stone of Consumer Watchdog described the practice bluntly: “Surveillance pricing is a customized price based on data that is collected from surveilling you. That is what the bill prohibits.” Kristen Heidelbach of UFCW added examples of retail tech being rolled out at scale and warned that facial-recognition-enabled displays and electronic shelf labels can enable price discrimination.

Business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Retailers Association opposed the measure or urged major changes. Robert Muthrie of the Chamber argued the bill could force businesses into expensive litigation because it creates a private right of action and does not clearly limit the kinds of data uses that are covered. “Our real concern here is that the bill's language is not limited to the examples given and, in fact, will make us litigate to defend our choice to offer a discount,” he said.

Retailers and trade associations pressed the committee and the author to narrow the definition to target only individualized price increases — not routine discounts, loyalty pricing or legitimate inventory-based promotions — and to avoid exposing routine business decisions to private litigation.

Committee members pressed both sides on enforcement and the private right of action. Ward said private suits are intended to make harmed individuals whole and to deter abusive practices; he said he is open to exploring parallel enforcement pathways, such as district attorneys or the attorney general for systemic abuses.

The committee accepted a set of amendments intended to narrow some exemptions and clarify the scope of permitted discounts and loyalty pricing before approving the bill. The measure advanced to the next committee with a recorded vote.

Supporters said the bill strikes a balance between preserving legitimate promotional pricing and stopping covert, individualized price hikes that are keyed to a consumer's profile. Opponents said further technical work is needed to protect legitimate discounting programs and to avoid exposing businesses to defensive litigation.