How does surveillance pricing work?

Companies collect and analyze data such as browsing history, purchase records, location information, and demographic details to estimate individual demand elasticity and willingness to pay. Based on these insights, they offer different prices for the same product—for example, presenting higher prices to users identified as facing urgent purchasing needs, while showing lower prices to price-sensitive consumers.

What actions does A.B. 2654 prohibit?

The bill bans practices that use personal data to set discriminatory prices for goods and services. However, it does not prevent companies from offering general discount programs, such as membership or bulk discounts. According to the EFF, concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce have already been addressed in the bill’s provisions.

How would regulating surveillance pricing impact consumers?

In the short term, some consumers who previously benefited from lower prices may lose those advantages. However, in the long term, regulation would create a fairer market environment where privacy is not traded for financial savings. The FTC’s research indicates that surveillance pricing has little evidence of benefiting consumers overall.

Internet Voices

Surveillance Pricing: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Delays Vote on Supporting Bill

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has postponed voting to support California's AB 2654 bill banning surveillance pricing, following criticism from the Chamber of Commerce and an EFF letter urging reconsideration.

July 29, 2026 4 min read Reviewed & edited by the SINGULISM Editorial Team

Surveillance Pricing: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Delays Vote on Supporting Bill — Photo by Lianhao Qu on Unsplash

Matthew Guariglia of EFF Deeplinks reports that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has delayed voting on a resolution to support California’s proposed legislation, A.B. 2654, which seeks to ban “surveillance pricing.” In response, the EFF has sent a letter urging the Board to reconsider.

What Is Surveillance Pricing?

The systematic collection, aggregation, and monetization of personal data has become a widespread business model in today’s tech industry. Surveillance pricing is a subset of this model, where businesses offer different prices for the same product based on the buyer’s personal information.

For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported last year that companies profiled consumers as “new parents” and intentionally displayed higher-priced baby thermometers during late-night searches. This practice, which exploits consumers’ urgency or vulnerability based on data insights, has been criticized for targeting individuals in weaker positions.

AB 2654 and the San Francisco Board of

Supervisors’ Actions A.B. 2654, introduced by California State Assemblymember Chris Ward, aims to prohibit discriminatory pricing practices based on surveillance data. The EFF has voiced strong support for the bill, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors initially moved to adopt a resolution in favor of it.

However, after the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce sent an email criticizing the bill, the Board postponed its vote on the resolution. The EFF argues that the Chamber’s objections rely on long-debunked arguments typically used by industry defenders.

In its letter to the Board, the EFF emphasized the benefits of banning surveillance pricing for consumers. The FTC’s findings confirm that companies use personal data to impose higher prices on specific customers. The EFF asserts that privacy is a fundamental human right and should not be commodified or traded for fair pricing.

The Problem with Privacy and Pricing Trade-Offs

The EFF has long opposed the “pay-for-privacy” model, where customers who decline data processing are charged higher prices. Surveillance pricing is seen as another manifestation of this flawed approach.

Advocates of surveillance pricing argue that leveraging personal data can result in lower prices for some consumers. However, recent studies reveal that this practice creates winners and losers based on consumers’ willingness or ability to switch products, and that the data underpinning such pricing decisions is often inaccurate. Even if lower prices are achieved for a few, the overarching system of monetizing consumer privacy remains fundamentally problematic, the EFF contends.

The EFF also points out that concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce have already been addressed in the text of A.B. 2654. Whether the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will revisit its resolution remains a focal issue moving forward.

Editorial Opinion

In the short term, the San Francisco Board’s decision to delay a vote slows the momentum for regulating surveillance pricing. However, the EFF’s letter to the Board may reignite discussion on the issue. As California’s legislative landscape evolves, other municipalities and states will likely follow suit, drawing broader attention. The fact that industry opposition relies on arguments that have already been discredited could bolster the case for regulation.

From a long-term perspective, banning surveillance pricing could fundamentally reshape the operational rules of the data-driven economy. Companies would no longer be able to use collected personal data for pricing decisions, prompting stricter scrutiny of data collection practices. For consumers, this represents a step toward a society where privacy is not treated as a financial burden. However, intensified lobbying efforts by businesses seeking alternative revenue streams are to be expected.

As an editorial question, if surveillance pricing regulation is implemented, where will businesses redirect their focus for data collection purposes? Can technology draw a clear line between advertising targeting and discriminatory pricing? Ensuring the effectiveness of regulation will also require sufficient resources for enforcement from organizations like the FTC and state attorney generals. These concerns will undoubtedly play a critical role in upcoming debates.

References

“San Francisco: Don’t Fall for Industry Defense of Surveillance Pricing”, by Matthew Guariglia — EFF Deeplinks, 2026-07-28T21:55:43.000Z (CC BY)
Source URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/san-francisco-dont-fall-industry-defense-surveillance-pricing

Frequently Asked Questions

How does surveillance pricing work?: Companies collect and analyze data such as browsing history, purchase records, location information, and demographic details to estimate individual demand elasticity and willingness to pay. Based on these insights, they offer different prices for the same product—for example, presenting higher prices to users identified as facing urgent purchasing needs, while showing lower prices to price-sensitive consumers.
What actions does A.B. 2654 prohibit?: The bill bans practices that use personal data to set discriminatory prices for goods and services. However, it does not prevent companies from offering general discount programs, such as membership or bulk discounts. According to the EFF, concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce have already been addressed in the bill’s provisions.
How would regulating surveillance pricing impact consumers?: In the short term, some consumers who previously benefited from lower prices may lose those advantages. However, in the long term, regulation would create a fairer market environment where privacy is not traded for financial savings. The FTC’s research indicates that surveillance pricing has little evidence of benefiting consumers overall.

Source: EFF Deeplinks

Written by SINGULISM Editorial Team

Edited & reviewed by Kenichiro Yamamoto

Last updated: July 28, 2026

If you find any factual errors or inaccuracies, we will promptly publish a correction. Please contact us via the contact form to request a correction.

Comments

← Back to Home