Yes to California's Bill to Ban Surveillance Pricing

2026-06-11 · Source: Deeplinks · Field: Legal & Regulatory — Compliance & Risk Management, Regulatory Affairs & Government Relations · Depth: Intermediate, medium

Summary

California's S.B. 2564 bill aims to ban "surveillance pricing," a practice where corporations offer customized prices for goods based on individuals' personal data, including browsing history, physical location, and shopping transactions. An FTC report in 2025 detailed how six companies provide these services, leading to discriminatory pricing examples like The Princeton Review charging Asians higher prices for test prep, Uber/Lyft charging more in non-white neighborhoods, and Tindr charging older users more. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) supports S.B. 2564, citing concerns over privacy invasion, disparate impact on vulnerable groups, and lack of price transparency. The bill defines surveillance pricing as a customized price based on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance, including third-party data. It provides for state/local government enforcement and a private right of action for consumers, with three exemptions for cost-based differences, termination discounts, and uniformly available, conspicuously posted discounts. The bill has advanced to the California Senate.

Key takeaway

For legal professionals and policymakers drafting privacy legislation, S.B. 2564 offers a clear model for directly addressing surveillance pricing. Your efforts should focus on defining the practice precisely and ensuring robust enforcement mechanisms, including a private right of action, to protect consumers from discriminatory and opaque pricing. Consider how specific exemptions can prevent unintended consequences while upholding the core principle of privacy as a fundamental right.

Key insights

Surveillance pricing, customizing product costs based on personal data, harms privacy, equity, and transparency, necessitating legislative bans.

Principles

• Privacy is a human right, not a commodity.
• Data minimization is crucial for privacy protection.
• Private right of action strengthens enforcement.

Method

Surveillance pricing involves collecting browsing, location, and transaction data, sorting customers into groups, and then dynamically adjusting product prices based on these profiles.

In practice

• Advocate for legislation banning data-driven price customization.
• Scrutinize pricing for disparities based on demographics.
• Support private rights of action in privacy laws.

Topics

• Surveillance Pricing
• Data Privacy Legislation
• California S.B. 2564
• Consumer Protection
• Algorithmic Discrimination
• Electronic Frontier Foundation

Best for: CTO, VP of Engineering/Data, Executive, Legal Professional, Policy Maker, AI Ethicist

Related on AIssential

• Congress's New Privacy Bill Is Built on Empty Promises — The SECURE Data Act is a regressive privacy bill that fails to protect consumers and undermines stronger state laws.
• Getting Digital Fairness Right: EFF's Recommendations for the EU's Digital Fairness Act — Digital fairness requires prioritizing privacy and user sovereignty over expanded surveillance.
• Smart glasses in court are a privacy nightmare — Smart glasses pose significant privacy and enforcement challenges for established courtroom recording prohibitions.
• How States Are Taking on Algorithmic Pricing — States are leading regulatory efforts against algorithmic price-fixing and surveillance pricing amidst federal uncertainty.
• US government ramps up mass surveillance with help of AI tech, data brokers – and your apps and devices — Pervasive data collection by private entities fuels a commercial market exploited by government agencies, eroding privacy.
• FTC to Require Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms to Pay Nearly $1 Million to Settle Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service — The FTC ruled that marketing an "AI-powered listening" service that resells email lists is deceptive, and hidden consent for voice data is invalid.

Open in AIssential →

Editorial summary, takeaway, and curation by AIssential. Original article published by Deeplinks.