Imagine walking into your local supermarket to buy a two-litre bottle of milk. You pay $3, but the person ahead of you pays $3.50, and the next shopper pays only $2. While this might sound strange, it reflects a growing practice known as surveillance pricing, where companies use personal data and artificial intelligence (AI) to determine how much each customer should pay. It is a regular practice and we must comprehend the ins and outs since we are directly subjected to it.
What is surveillance pricing?
Surveillance pricing refers to the use of digital tracking and AI to set individualised prices based on consumer behaviour. By analysing a person’s online activity, shopping habits, and even technical details like their device or location, retailers estimate each customer’s “pain point”, the maximum amount they are likely to pay for a product or service.
A recent report from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) highlighted that businesses can collect such information through website pixels, cookies, account registrations, or email sign-ups. These tools allow them to observe browsing time, clicks, scrolling speed, and even mouse movements. Together, these insights reveal how interested a shopper is in a product, how urgent their need may be, and how much they can be charged without hesitation.
Growing concerns about fairness
In mid-2024, Delta Air Lines disclosed that a small percentage of its domestic ticket pricing was already determined using AI, with plans to expand this method to more routes. The revelation led U.S. lawmakers to question whether customer data was being used to charge certain passengers higher fares. Although Delta stated that it does not use AI for “predatory or discriminatory” pricing, the issue drew attention to how such technology could reshape consumer costs.
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan has also warned that some businesses can predict each consumer’s willingness to pay by analysing their digital patterns. This ability, she said, could allow companies to push prices to the upper limit of what individuals can afford, often without their knowledge.
How does it work?
AI-driven pricing systems use vast amounts of data, including login details, purchase history, device type, and location to classify shoppers by “price sensitivity.” The software then tests different price levels to see which one yields the highest profit.
The FTC’s surveillance pricing study revealed several real-world examples of this practice:
Real-world examples and evidence
Ride-hailing platforms have long faced questions about this kind of data-driven pricing. In 2016, Uber’s former head of economic research noted that users with low battery life were more likely to accept surge pricing. A 2023 Belgian newspaper investigation later reported small differences in Uber fares depending on a phone’s battery level. Uber denied that battery status affects fares, saying its prices depend only on driver supply and ride demand.
Is this new?
The concept itself isn’t new. Dynamic pricing has existed for decades, but digital surveillance has made it far more sophisticated. In the early 2000s, Amazon experimented with varying prices for DVDs based on browsing data, sparking backlash from consumers who discovered the differences. Similarly, the UK’s Norwich Union once used satellite tracking for a “Pay As You Drive” car insurance model, which was discontinued after privacy concerns.
The future of pricing
Today’s combination of big data and AI allows retailers to create precise, individualised pricing models that adjust instantly. Experts warn this could undermine fair competition, reduce transparency, and widen inequality between consumers. Regulators like the FTC are now studying these systems closely to understand their impact on market fairness and consumer privacy.
For shoppers, awareness is key. Comparing prices across devices, clearing cookies, and using privacy tools can help reduce personal data tracking. As AI continues to shape how businesses price their products, understanding surveillance pricing is becoming essential to protect both privacy and pocket.
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed actions against two US-based data brokers for allegedly engaging in illegal tracking of users' location data. The data was reportedly used to trace individuals in sensitive locations such as hospitals, churches, military bases, and other protected areas. It was then sold for purposes including advertising, political campaigns, immigration enforcement, and government use.
The Georgia-based data broker, Mobilewalla, has been accused of tracking residents of domestic abuse shelters and protestors during the George Floyd demonstrations in 2020. According to the FTC, Mobilewalla allegedly attempted to identify protestors’ racial identities by tracing their smartphones. The company’s actions raise serious privacy and ethical concerns.
The FTC also suspects Gravy Analytics and its subsidiary Venntel of misusing customer location data without consent. Reports indicate they used this data to “unfairly infer health decisions and religious beliefs,” as highlighted by TechCrunch. These actions have drawn criticism for their potential to exploit sensitive personal information.
The FTC revealed that Gravy Analytics collected over 17 billion location signals from more than 1 billion smartphones daily. The data was allegedly sold to federal law enforcement agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated, “Surreptitious surveillance by data brokers undermines our civil liberties and puts servicemembers, union workers, religious minorities, and others at risk. This is the FTC’s fourth action this year challenging the sale of sensitive location data, and it’s past time for the industry to get serious about protecting Americans’ privacy.”
As part of two settlements announced by the FTC, Mobilewalla and Gravy Analytics will cease collecting sensitive location data from customers. They are also required to delete the historical data they have amassed about millions of Americans over time.
The settlements mandate that the companies establish a sensitive location data program to identify and restrict tracking and disclosing customer information from specific locations. These protected areas include religious organizations, medical facilities, schools, and other sensitive sites.
Additionally, the FTC’s order requires the companies to maintain a supplier assessment program to ensure consumers have provided consent for the collection and use of data that reveals their precise location or mobile device information.
OpenAI has admitted that developing ChatGPT would not have been feasible without the use of copyrighted content to train its algorithms. It is widely known that artificial intelligence (AI) systems heavily rely on social media content for their development. In fact, AI has become an essential tool for many social media platforms.