Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricing | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Skip to main content

AboutContact

Press

People

Opportunities

IssuesFree Speech

Privacy

Creativity and Innovation

Transparency

International

Security

Artifical Intelligence

Our WorkDeeplinks Blog

Press Releases

Events

Legal Cases

Whitepapers

Podcast

Annual Reports

Take ActionAction Center

Volunteer

Follow EFF

ToolsPrivacy Badger

Surveillance Self-Defense

Certbot

Atlas of Surveillance

Cover Your Tracks

Street Level Surveillance

apkeep

Shop

DonateDonate to EFF

Giving Societies

Shop

Sponsorships

Other Ways to Give

Membership FAQ

DonateDonate to EFF

Shop

Other Ways to Give

Email updates on news, actions,

and events in your area.

Join EFF Lists

Copyright (CC BY)

Trademark

Privacy Policy

Thanks

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Donate

If you use technology, this fight is yours.Donate today

Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricing

DEEPLINKS BLOG

By Adam Schwartz<br>June 11, 2026

Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricing

Share It

Share on Mastodon<br>Share on Bluesky<br>Share on Facebook<br>Copy link

Corporations harvest and monetize ever-growing amounts of our personal data, such as our browsing history and physical location. One bitter fruit of this poisonous tree is known as “surveillance pricing”: corporations offer the same product to two different people at two different prices, based on scrutiny of these people’s respective personal data.

Surveillance pricing is bad for privacy, equity, and price transparency. So EFF supports a California bill, S.B. 2564, which would ban this creepy practice.

How Surveillance Pricing Works

In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a report about the practices of six companies that provide surveillance pricing services to hundreds of other companies, including grocery stores and apparel retailers. The report found that surveillance pricing draws upon customers’ browsing history, physical location, and shopping transaction history. Customers’ data can come from the vendor itself, from its surveillance pricing service provider, or from third-party data brokers. Customers are sorted into groups based on their personal data, as is done for targeted ads. As a result of surveillance pricing, a business might offer two customers different prices for the same product, based for example on whether they are a new parent, or whether they live near a business’s competitor.

As former FTC Chair Lina Khan explained:

Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services – from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage.

Unfortunately, the current FTC chair closed the FTC’s portal for public comments regarding surveillance pricing. Fortunately, the California Attorney General has initiated its own investigation of this practice.

Researchers have identified many examples of surveillance pricing:

The Princeton Review offered people who lived in some zip codes a higher price for test prep services, compared to people in other zip codes. As a result, Asians were twice as likely as non-Asians to be offered a higher price.

In a year-long study of tens of millions of rides in Chicago, Uber and Lyft offered a higher price for trips that ended in neighborhoods with high non-white populations.

Tindr offered older people (aged 30 to 49) higher prices for Tindr Plus, compared to younger people (aged 18-29).

Orbitz offered people who used Apple computers a higher price for hotel rooms, compared to people who used other types of computers.

Hotel booking sites offered people from San Francisco a higher price for hotel rooms, compared to people from other cities.

Target offered a higher price to people physically located at the store, compared to people located elsewhere.

Staples offered a higher price to customers who lived further from the company’s competitors, compared to customers who lived closer.

Why EFF Hates Surveillance Pricing

This practice is harmful in many ways. First, surveillance pricing invades our privacy.  Vendors offer us a price only after scrutinizing our personal data about what we’ve clicked online and where we’ve travelled offline. Moreover, surveillance pricing incentivizes all businesses to harvest as much of our personal data as possible. Some businesses will use it for their own surveillance pricing. Other businesses, which might not themselves use it this way, will sell it to data brokers, which in turn will sell it to others for use in surveillance pricing.

Second, surveillance pricing can disparately burden people of color and other vulnerable groups. For example, as described above, surveillance pricing led to Asian people paying more for test prep services, older people paying more for dating services, and people living in non-white neighborhoods paying more for a ride...