Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Pricing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances Ward bill to ban ‘surveillance pricing’ that uses personal data to set different prices
Summary
AB 446 would prohibit businesses from using consumers’ personal data to charge different prices for the same product or service; supporters cited grocery and transportation examples and a Target enforcement case, while opponents warned of conflicts with the CCPA and operational problems for loyalty programs.
The Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee passed AB 446, Assemblymember James Ward’s proposal to ban what the bill calls “surveillance pricing” — using a consumer’s personal information or algorithmically derived profiles to charge different prices for the same good or service.
Ward told the committee the bill targets companies that use customers’ electronic data, location signals, or other profiles to alter prices in real time. "We have always believed there should be one price for one good for all people," Ward said, citing examples in which firms adjust online prices based on location or other data. He argued that the practice disproportionately harms lower‑income shoppers and communities with fewer retail alternatives.
Supporters included Consumer Watchdog and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, who warned that retail technology and digital price tags make individualized, data‑driven price changes possible inside stores as well as online. "Retailers already have the tools they need to put surveillance pricing into effect," Kristen Heidelbach of UFCW said.
Opponents — including the California Chamber of Commerce, California Grocers Association and several trade groups — said committee amendments improved the bill but raised concerns that the measure could conflict with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), unintentionally restrict legitimate loyalty and discount programs, and harm small businesses. Chamber representatives also cited a statutory regime that governs financial incentive programs under the CCPA and urged the author to coordinate language.
Author amendments sought to preserve typical discount and loyalty programs while prohibiting price increases tied to personal data; the text also carves out insurance pricing to avoid conflicts with Proposition 103 enforcement, and the author said she would continue working with stakeholders on drafting. The committee approved the bill as amended and referred it to the Judiciary Committee.
The record includes testimony describing a 2022 enforcement action in which Target paid a $5 million settlement for a price‑related practice tied to geolocation data; proponents and opponents differed on how widespread current surveillance pricing is and whether existing federal enforcement is adequate. Committee members pressed the author on opt‑out rates under the CCPA and on whether the bill would unintentionally bar beneficial, universally offered discounts such as teacher or veteran programs.
The committee vote sent AB 446 to the Judiciary Committee with committee amendments; the author said conversations with industry and consumer groups would continue before further hearings.
Sources and attribution: Assemblymember Ward (author); Jamie Court (Consumer Watchdog); Kristen Heidelbach (UFCW Western States Council); Ronak Deilami (CalChamber opposition); Daniel Conway (California Grocers Association opposition); Robert Moutre (Chamber of Commerce opposition).
