#United States #Los Angeles #Consumer Watchdog #Surveillance Pricing #AB 446

Consumer Watchdog Reports Major Setback in Surveillance Pricing Bill

On September 5, 2025, Consumer Watchdog announced that the movement to curb surveillance pricing practices, which use personal data to influence product pricing, has hit a significant roadblock. California Senator Chris Ward has officially withdrawn Senate Bill AB 446, which aimed to regulate this controversial practice, following a tumultuous journey through the Senate.

The Withdrawal of AB 446

Initially, AB 446 sought to prevent companies from leveraging unique consumer data to set varying prices for identical products. However, the bill faced intense pushback from various industry groups, including retailers and the California Chamber of Commerce. As a result, it was significantly amended, paring down its scope so that it would only affect grocery stores.

Justin Kloczko, a representative from Consumer Watchdog, criticized the last-minute changes, stating, "This year was the moment to address the novel and pervasive practice known as surveillance pricing. Unfortunately, there was a lot of misunderstanding about AB 446, and Senate leadership appears to have fallen for it." The senator expressed disappointment that even the amended version, which included exemptions for certain groups, was not considered ready for enactment.

The Misunderstanding and Misinformation

The journey for AB 446 has exposed a troubling trend of misinformation circulating around the topic of surveillance pricing. Despite the bill including exemptions for teachers, veterans, seniors, students, and those who participate in loyalty programs, misinformation campaigns have targeted it. Groups funded advertisements claiming that the bill would harm these very communities, leading to a wider misunderstanding of the legislation's intent and effects.

Kloczko noted, "The amended bill was not ready for primetime. Companies have made tremendous efforts to cloud the issue with misleading ads and op-eds, creating a narrative far removed from the truth."

The process by which such critical legislation was modified has raised concerns. The Senate Appropriations Committee, known for its opaque procedures, altered aspects of the bill without public transparency, further complicating matters.

Call for Meaningful Consumer Protection

Senator Ward emphasized his commitment to advocating for substantial protections, stating, "Californians deserve real, meaningful protections—not watered-down half measures—and I refuse to accept anything less." The senator has pledged to revisit the issue in January, aiming to continue the fight for fair pricing practices for consumers.

Kloczko agreed, asserting that surveillance pricing has become pervasive, especially in a landscape where price disparities are increasingly influenced by granular consumer data. The situation is highlighted by algorithms determining pricing based on user behavior and geographic data, leading to unfair pricing models.

Consumer Watchdog has previously reported on how certain companies have exploited this practice. For instance, companies like Orbitz charged Mac users more for hotel bookings, while Amazon varied prices based on the device used for browsing. Notably, taxi services like Lyft have also been caught charging users different rates for the same journey based purely on unspecified variables.

Future Implications

As the conversation surrounding surveillance pricing continues, the implications are vast, affecting all consumers and raising fundamental questions about fairness and ethical business practices in a digitally driven economy. While this chapter ends with the withdrawal of AB 446, it is clear that the fight against surveillance pricing is far from over. Consumer advocacy groups, alongside lawmakers, are poised to resume legislative efforts aimed at safeguarding consumer rights against the invasive tactics of modern pricing algorithms.

In the final days of the Biden Administration, the Federal Trade Commission acknowledged the occurrence of surveillance pricing. However, industry experts now fear that the Trump-era FTC may have deprioritized the issue, highlighting the urgency for legislative action.

For updates and more information on this ongoing issue, watch the consumer alert video released by Consumer Watchdog, where they explore the implications of surveillance pricing practices.