Maryland Becomes First State To Pass Bill Banning 'Surveillance Pricing' (denver7.com) 41
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Denver7: Maryland is poised to become the first state in the country to ban "surveillance pricing." The practice refers to companies using a shopper's personal data, such as browsing history, location, or purchasing behavior, to tailor prices to individual customers. The Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, passed this month and sent to the governor for a signature, would prohibit food retailers and third-party delivery services from using the practice. Violations would be treated as deceptive trade practices under state law, with potential fines and lawsuits. While Consumer Reports called the move "encouraging," it warned that the final version contains "loopholes" that don't fully protect consumers. Some of the exemptions noted in the report include "applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price; exempting pricing tied to loyalty or membership programs, even if prices are higher; and exempting pricing linked to subscriptions or subscription-based services."
socialism fails (Score:4, Funny)
looks like Maryland has made its position on the free market clear! i feel bad for Marylanders who will be deprived of this dynamic innovation!
Re: (Score:2)
On yet another hand.. (Score:2)
I think the phrase you're looking for is:
On the Gripping Hand
Re: socialism fails (Score:1)
Imagine a utopia where poor people could be identified by sight, rather than waiting for an EBT card and letting the government waste money paying for them!
Instead the poor could be just be sold staples at a lower price without a nanny state, while not losing a more profitable sale to a rich person who just happens to like cooking with the same ingredients.
Re: socialism fails (Score:3, Funny)
You think surveillance pricing is about poor people paying less? Oh you naive fool.
Re: socialism fails (Score:2)
Why not? A sale is a sale. Of course it is also about suckering the poor into overpriced luxury items, and overcharging the middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brand Loyalty programs are just charging you more, and they use your "extra money" spent to be banks. That's what the airline industry did, and then devalued your points.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Apartment owners did this and it caused rents to shoot up an extra 20 or 30% over what they would have been without it. Several attorney generals pushed back against it but the damage is already done. Also the courts are packed with pro corporate judges so long term it's probably going to die and we're going to go back to having these policies in most places.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, collusion, price fixing, and antitrust violations are a few of the ways it is an issue. Indirectly by third parties doing the collusion, as was done with apartments, is still collusion.
The special interest groups clearly got their hands into the politicians for this version. Here's the text, pick the version of the full text in the dropdown. [trackbill.com] Even though it has loopholes you could drive a delivery truck through, it's a start.
Re: (Score:2)
There already is surveillance pricivng. Rents is one thing. Going to a dealership is another - when you do that "test drive", many unscrupulous dealers run your driver's license information through various databases in order to figure out your financial situation. That information is then later used to impact the negotiations on price.
The funny thing is, surveillance prices at the physical store is the least likely place it will happen - digital price tags or not. Because it's going to be an extremely compl
this is why (Score:3)
Quit making the rich richer!
Usage Data (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, a data-mining ban from the government will never come, as they want that data, too.
Re:Usage Data (Score:5, Interesting)
The company I used to work for data-mined telemetry to find out what product features people actually use. Would that be banned?
If linked in any way to the identity of the user then yes, it should be banned. If used for anything beyond finding out what product features people use (for example, selling usage data to insurance or ad companies) then yes, it should be banned. If collected without the user being clearly notified this is happening, and without the user's explicit opt-in then yes, it should be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
If linked in any way to the identity of the user then yes, it should be banned. If collected without the user being clearly notified this is happening, and without the user's explicit opt-in then yes, it should be banned
They were government-required audit logs, tied to user accounts (21 CFR Part 11) The underlying feature is un-ban-able. We asked the companies for them so we could figure out the adoption rates of new features. Most companies didn't care. We didn't do anything else with the data.
Re: Usage Data (Score:2)
This needs to die. (Score:3)
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.
How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"
Re: This needs to die. (Score:1)
the market has ALWAYS endorsed "from each according to their ability," it's just that we call it "charging what the market will bear".
all this does is change the granularity of the decision making. instead of poor grocery stores and rich grocery stores, a store can target both markets at once through so-called "surveillance".
i'm not saying it's good or bad, but it sure as hell isn't communism. you're just trained to use that word when you don't like something lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price".
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.
How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"
A simple answer is, prices must not be changed during opening hours. This is basically how most countries regulate their petrol stations. A price is set at the start of the day and may not legally be altered until the following day (otherwise we'd have them changing the price depending on how many people are queuing up).
"Who run Venmo Town?" (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
The only way to stop tracking and datamining is to kill the monetization. They will collect what they can find, but if nobody buys the data, they will eventually stop. So next ban personalized ads.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll
Re: (Score:2)
If hypothetically targeted ads would be banned, there would be the same advertising budget as before, the problem is everyone would have to stop at the same time. It's a prisoner's dilemma.
There are also quite a few articles that targeting doesn't even work that good. But put ads without personalization on your page and you earn less. Offer ads with less personalization and people choose the companies that offer better targeting. Everyone needs to do it, because everyone else does it. No matter if it is eff
Re: (Score:2)
If hypothetically targeted ads would be banned, there would be the same advertising budget as before
Not really. The 2x $1000 or so I spent on targeted ad campaigns have been worth it. If they weren't targeted, it would be far less effective; there's quite a few articles pointing out that targeted ads have a far higher click-through rate, and a higher conversion rate as well. Without targeting, my ad budget might still be $2000 but I wouldn't be spending it.
Re: (Score:2)
The buyer's budget is also the same. It's a zero-sum game. And you still have the option to advertise on sites that fit your product and reach a good audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that industry lobbiests got their hands on the politicians.
It has a *TON* of loopholes. The biggest loophole is all they need to do is start including these words in their disclosures: "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM OR BY USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." Just make sure it is included in the webpage along with all the other terms and conditions, and they can do all they want.
somewhat off topic (Score:2)
Good Fucking Luck (Score:2)
Good fucking luck proving that it happened to you or even at a systemic level.
Fair pricing goes both ways - I'm wary (Score:3)
2. A fairer price is one where one party didn't gain an unfair advantage through a monopoly or failure of a free market - real-estate agents inserting themselves in a transaction, monopolists, government intervention..
3. Fairer is a price where the buyer and seller offer the same price to anyone
4. Fairer is when both parties know what information the other has
5. Fairer is when both parties have similar bargaining power and neither party is sticky, i.e. has a significant preference to buy from the other party - company store, specialized workers with only one employer (NHL, NFL etc), renters already in a unit.
6. Fairer still is when both parties have the same information
Ideally we always have the first 5 and at least some parity on the last. The less fair a market is, the less efficient it becomes. Item 4 actually helps both parties by reducing uncertainty by the buy and increasing the price for the seller.
I'm wary of supporting bills like this because governments have a tendency to support policies that break these conditions of fairness and while they seem as if the policies would help "the little guy" in practice they often do the opposite. Rent controls and zoning regulations have been a horrible to younger people and have created most of the homeless problem in Canada (we regulated away flop houses, the housing of last resort). Rules on insurance have caused insurance companies to stop offering insurance. Regulatory burden has lead to regulatory capture in many industries and a huge barrier to entry in others. Unnecessary licensing drives up costs and restricts young workers from entering many trades. The track record of these laws is terrible. This one seems like more virtue signaling than anything else. No brick and mortar store will raise prices based on who you are, although they may have selective discounts. On line stores are already doing this but since their servers aren't in the jurisdiction I don't see how this will help. Finally, voluntary price discrimination is helpful. When I travel by air in the livestock section my flight is partially subsidized by the people paying 10x as much as me in first class. So we have more regulation but I'm not sure we are better off.
Re: Fair pricing goes both ways - I'm wary (Score:1)
If you get rid of item 3 (the Law of One Price), do you lose mathematical proofs of free market efficiency? So why should we support markets again?
Not having the same price to all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. A fair price is a price that two parties agree to assuming no duress caused by the other party
You're ignoring duress by society, of which both parties are a part, making it an inseparable party to the exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Enforcement will be a breeze, right? (Score:1)
Airline tickets? (Score:2)
Careful what you wish for (Score:2)
San Diego recently passed a city ordinance (so glad they can't dictate to the whole county) that stipulates if you offer a digital coupon for an in-store item (not online ordering) you must also have this coupon printed in a flyer. They did this because some people that can't use a cellphone were being deprived of the coupon price.
I don't doubt there is a 1% (entirely comprised of very old seniors) portion of the population that cannot use a smart phone or otherwise chooses not to have one. So to protect th