Colorado and Minnesota Move to Ban Surveillance Pricing Practices

The Colorado House of Representatives recently passed House Bill 26-1210, aimed at regulating the use of personal data and algorithms by companies to set individualized prices on products, including groceries and plane tickets. The bill, which passed with a 39-24 vote, prohibits the practice of using personal data—such as search history and online habits—to determine prices. Bill sponsor Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Democrat from Denver, emphasized the importance of protecting consumer data, stating, “Everybody understands that our phones have become extensions of our brains.” The legislation categorizes surveillance pricing as a deceptive trade practice, enforceable by the attorney general.

Colorado NewslineKSTP-TV

In Minnesota, lawmakers are also considering a ban on surveillance pricing in grocery stores. A proposed Senate bill defines surveillance pricing as setting customized prices based on consumer data collected through electronic surveillance. Sen. Lindsey Port, one of the bill's authors, expressed concern over rising grocery prices, stating, “We shouldn’t let the desire for more profits... be another reality for Minnesotans for why prices are increasing.” The Minnesota legislation would also prohibit electronic shelving labels, which facilitate surveillance pricing.

KSTP-TVColorado Newsline

While proponents of the bills argue that they protect consumers from exploitation, critics have raised concerns about the potential overreach of such regulations. Republican Rep. Chris Richardson from Colorado cautioned that the bill could unintentionally regulate standard workplace analytics, such as human resources software. Similarly, Minnesota Retailers have expressed worries that the proposed legislation could hinder targeted promotions and rewards that benefit consumers. Will Hagen, representing the organization, stated that the notion of stores raising prices for individuals “does not reflect how today’s market operates.”

Colorado Newsline

In Colorado, Rep. Jennifer Bacon highlighted the necessity of the bill by referencing existing antitrust and anti-deceptive practices laws, asserting that they are designed to protect consumer engagement. Conversely, critics like Richardson argue that the bill's broad language could lead to unintended consequences in various sectors.

Colorado Newsline

The Colorado bill will now proceed to the Senate for further consideration, while the Minnesota Senate bill has been advanced for potential inclusion in an omnibus bill. Both legislative efforts reflect a growing concern over the implications of surveillance pricing on consumer rights and market fairness.

Colorado Newsline

• “Everybody understands that our phones have become extensions of our brains,” — Rep. Javier Mabrey, Bill Sponsor

Colorado Newsline

• “We shouldn’t let the desire for more profits and the ability to extract as much as possible from us be another reality for Minnesotans for why prices are increasing,” — Sen. Lindsey Port, Bill Author

KSTP-TV

• “There is a reason why we have anti-deceptive practices laws, and it’s to protect the consumer’s ability to actually engage.” — Rep. Jennifer Bacon, Bill Sponsor

Colorado Newsline

• “does not reflect how today’s market operates.” — Will Hagen, Minnesota Retailers

KSTP-TV

This legislative movement in both states highlights the increasing scrutiny of how consumer data is utilized in pricing strategies, aiming to establish clearer protections for consumers in an evolving digital marketplace.

KSTP-TV