San Francisco: Don’t Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

San Francisco: Don’t Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing

The concept of “surveillance pricing” is just one part of a much larger problem and business model: corporations maximizing their profits by invading our privacy. The all-too-common business model is to systematically harvest, collate, and store as much of our personal data as possible, and then monetize it through use and sale. When it comes to surveillance pricing, that looks like corporations offering the same product to two different people at two different prices, based on harvested personal information. That's whyEFF supports A.B. 2654, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward, which bans this harmful practice.

As an organization based in San Francisco, EFF was proud to learn that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors had alsointroduced a resolutionto similarly support the legislation. However,  we were disappointed to learn the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has sincestalled a voteon theresolutionstating their own support forA.B. 2654after receiving an email from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce criticizing the bill using well-worn and debunked concerns. We’ve sent the Supervisors aletterasking them to reconsider.

Banning surveillance pricing would be good for consumers. The FTC has found that companies will set higher prices based on personal information. “For instance,”the FTC found last year, “if a consumer is profiled as a new parent, the consumer may intentionally be shown higher-priced baby thermometers on the first page of their in-app search results, based on their residential zip code and time of purchase.” Let's say that again: the U.S. government has found that companies may seek to use surveillance pricing to charge parents searching for a thermometer in the middle of the nightmore moneyin a time of need.

Privacy is a human right, not something that people should understand as a currency to give away or protect based on how it will impact the price of groceries. EFF haslongopposedpay-for-privacy schemes, in which a company charges a higher price to a customer who refuses to submit to processing of their personal data. Surveillance pricing is another version of that practice. You should never have to worry that your privacy rights depend on how much you make.

At a time when prices for everyday goods continue to climb, some surveillance pricing defendersnotethat using personal information could lead to lower prices for some consumers. Yetsomerecentstudiesindicate there will be losers and winners  based on factors such as whether a consumer is willing or able to switch products. Who loses or wins also will turn on the accuracy of the underlying data – yet surveillance pricing is often based onfalse information.

That said, even if surveillance pricing has the capability to lead to lower prices (which it often doesn't) we oppose it as just another way that corporations try to make customers pay for their privacy.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce’s concerns are fully addressed in the text of A.B. 2654. The Chamber raises questions about how businesses will comply with the law. But the bill is quite clear: “a retailer shall not engage in surveillance pricing.” It also has a clear definition of what “surveillance pricing” is. The banned practice is defined as: “[i] a customized price for a good for a specific consumer or group of consumers, [ii] based, in whole or in part, on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance,” including if that information is “acquired from a third party.” In other words, “surveillance pricing” is a customized price based on personal information.

The SF  Chamber’s letter also asks about the bill's “treatment of discounts and loyalty programs.” In this way, too, A.B. 2654 is quite clear. The bill includes three broad carveouts that ensure it doesn't disrupt loyalty programs and discounts:

An opt-in senior discount to the movies is not the problem. The systematic collection of all of our personal information to determine whether someone is a senior and if so whether they should pay more or less for that matinee is.

As we said in ourblog postoutlining our support for this bill:

Surveillance pricing is very similar to online behavioral advertising, a business practice that EFF urges governments toban. Both practices incentivize all businesses to collect as much of our personal data as possible, in order to later monetize it. Both practices lead some businesses to collate and store our data into dossiers about us for later use. Both practices use these surveillance-based dossiers to manipulate and limit our economic choices, by altering the advertisements and prices we see online.

We urge the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to jointhe coalitionof groupsthat supportA.B. 2564, and stand against companies mining our personal information to charge us different prices for the same thing.

You can read our letter to the Supervisorshere.

Related Issues

Related Updates

The Senate Commerce Committeewillvotethis weekon several censorious and privacy invasive bills:KOSA, theSCREEN Act,Youth AI Privacy Act,andCHATBOT Act. While we appreciate that the Committee is taking the time to look at these bills separately, it’s...

SAN FRANCISCO – Some software development kits (SDKs) provided by advertising companies to help developers monetize their apps are automatically feeding users’ location data into systems that location data brokers use to track people, an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)report found. EFF began investigating the location-sharing practices of various...

Update:The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. The Senate Commerce Committee is once again considering legislation that would dramatically expand age verification, and undermine privacy for everyone. Alongside the...

Update:The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. The Senate Commerce Committee is poised to consider theYouth AI Privacy Act, a bill that would require AI companies to...

Update:The Senate Commerce Committee voted to advance this bill on August 5, 2026. EFF continues to oppose the bill, which still needs approval from the full Senate. Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing education, and the way people search for information. Parents, teenagers, teachers, and schools are struggling with tough...

Are you a California resident? Then we've got exciting news for you: there's a tool just for you that lets you take a single, relatively easy step to protect your privacy. It's called a DROP request. (That's Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, if you're fancy). This one bit of paperwork...

Related Issues

Back to top

Follow EFF:

Check out our 4-star rating onCharity Navigator.

Contact

About

Issues

Updates

Press

Donate