Vermont committee weighs ban on "surveillance pricing" that tailors prices to consumers' data

Senator Rebecca White introduced S.207 on Jan. 30 to curb what she called "surveillance pricing," a practice she said allows companies to use personal data to set individualized prices for goods and services. "If you are someone who purchases things online or goes and looks at flights or even takes an Uber, this bill will be relevant to you," Sen. White told the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee.

The bill, as presented, would prohibit sellers from using covered personal information—examples cited include browsing history, rewards-card data and other personally identifiable information—to offer a price that differs from a "standard price" offered generally. "Surveillance pricing is when a company takes data about you ... to decide the price of a good or a service, not based on the demand for that product," Sen. White said. She argued the prohibition would protect consumers and set a state-level standard while other jurisdictions consider similar steps.

Michael Grady of the Legislative Council explained technical distinctions the committee weighed. Grady described dynamic in-store pricing—where electronic shelf labels or point-of-sale systems change prices in real time—as different from surveillance pricing, which relies on personally identifiable information collected or inferred from consumers. "We're not talking about dynamic pricing. We're talking about surveillance pricing," Grady said, and noted the Agency of Agriculture currently enforces unit pricing and weights and measures in stores.

Committee members pressed on scope and enforceability. Some members asked how a retailer or national online platform would be regulated by a single state; Grady and others pointed to the attorney general's consumer-protection authority and to precedent that internet sellers with in-state contacts can be subject to state law enforcement. Sen. White said the bill relies on existing consumer-protection enforcement and that private suits are available under current law.

Members also raised drafting concerns. Several senators described "standard price" as a potentially vague term that might allow retailers to set an artificially high posted price and selectively discount certain buyers, undermining the bill's purpose. The committee discussed specific carve-outs that the bill proposes—insurance was cited as an explicit exception—and whether services or professional pricing should be included or omitted.

No committee vote was taken. Multiple members recommended further outreach before action: staff suggested consulting the Agency of Agriculture and national association work on dynamic pricing, and committee members said they wanted to hear from regulators (the committee named the Agency of Agriculture's contact) and from retail stakeholders to evaluate enforceability and possible unintended consequences.

The committee will hold the record open for further information and follow up with the regulator and retail representatives before deciding whether to advance the measure. "This is the beginning of this discussion," one member said; another asked staff to schedule briefings so the committee can refine statutory language before a formal vote.