The news: Two more states have advanced legislation to impose limits on surveillance pricing after Maryland became the first to do so in April.

• Connecticut governor Ned Lamont signed a bill last week prohibiting retailers from using personally identifiable data to set prices.
• New York state lawmakers passed similar legislation to prevent companies from using browser history, income, real-time location, and other information to personalize prices The measure would require businesses to disclose when they are using dynamic pricing.

How we got here: Dynamic pricing is becoming a hot-button issue as consumers grow more worried about their finances. As expenses rise, households are becoming more sensitive to tactics that could further diminish their buying power. At the same time, lawmakers are paying closer attention to retailers’ use of electronic labels and algorithmic pricing amid concerns that such tools could lead to surge pricing and price gouging.

• Around 3 in 5 US adults are concerned about retailers using personal data to set different prices for different shoppers, according to a December 2025 survey by Talker Research.
• Roughly two-thirds of consumers believe that surveillance pricing and digital price tags would lead to higher grocery bills, according to a GBAO survey conducted for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
• Consumers are also wary of potential consequences such as surge pricing during emergencies or other spikes in demand, price fixing, or higher prices for shoppers that retailers believe can afford to pay more.

Implications for retailers: Faced with growing political and consumer pressure, companies need to respond with transparency.

Some are trying to do just that: Walmart spent roughly 15 minutes during last week’s Associates Week and shareholder meeting addressing whether it would experiment with shelf-label pricing. It emphasized its commitment to consistent pricing and said it has neither the plans nor the capability to personalize in-store prices for individual shoppers.

But those that remain silent risk losing shopper trust and inviting more political scrutiny.