The Federal Trade Commission has put a name on something grocery shoppers have long suspected but could not prove: the possibility that the price on the screen is not the same price everyone else sees. The agency’s interim findings from a formal market study describe an emerging ecosystem of data intermediaries that use personal information to help retailers adjust prices and promotions at the individual level. For consumers already stretched by food costs, the mechanics behind so-called surveillance pricing deserve close scrutiny, because the tools powering it are far more sophisticated than a simple coupon algorithm.
How Personal Data Feeds Into the Price Tag
The FTC’s surveillance pricing study found that intermediary companies can draw on a wide range of personal data to tailor what consumers pay. That data includes location, demographics, browsing behavior, mouse movements on a retailer’s website, and even what a shopper leaves sitting in an online cart. These are not abstract advertising signals. They form a behavioral profile granular enough to estimate willingness to pay, which intermediaries then package into AI and algorithmic tools sold to businesses across multiple industries.
The agency issued Section 6(b) orders to eight companies that market these tools, requiring them to disclose their products, client industries, data sources, data types, and measurable effects on prices, sales, and revenue. The FTC later summarized this effort in a formal special report on intermediary firms, underscoring that regulators are not merely mapping the data flows but examining whether the tools change what people actually pay. A separate enforcement action against InMarket illustrates how the supply chain works in practice: the agency alleged that the company collected precise location data through its own apps and through third-party apps that embedded its software development kit, then combined that information with other data for targeted advertising without obtaining informed consent, leading to a final order that restricts its ability to sell or share that location data.
The InMarket case shows how a single data broker can sit invisibly inside dozens of everyday apps, harvesting store visits and movement patterns that feed directly into the targeting tools retailers use. If a grocer’s pricing partner knows a shopper visited three competing stores before opening a particular app, that behavioral signal could influence which discount appears or whether a discount appears at all. The consumer never sees the intermediary and has no practical way to compare the price served to them against the price served to a neighbor. That information imbalance is central to the FTC’s concern: when people cannot see the rules of the game, they cannot meaningfully choose whether to participate or push back.
Surveillance pricing also blurs the line between personalization and discrimination. Traditional coupons or loyalty programs offer the same deals to anyone who meets clear conditions, such as buying a certain quantity or shopping on a particular day. By contrast, algorithmic pricing can quietly charge more to someone who appears less price-sensitive or who has fewer nearby alternatives. The FTC’s market study suggests that these tools may reward intensive data collection and opaque profiling, creating incentives for retailers and intermediaries to gather as much information as possible, whether or not it is necessary to complete a purchase or provide a service.
Regulatory Pressure and What Consumers Can Do
California has moved faster than federal regulators on one piece of the puzzle: making data brokers visible. The state requires data brokers to register in an official registry, and on January 1, 2026, it launched the Delete Request and Opt-out Platform, known as DROP, giving residents a centralized tool to request deletion of their personal information from registered brokers. CalPrivacy reinforced this framework with Enforcement Advisory No. 2025-01, which details compliance expectations and penalties, including daily fines, for brokers that fail to register or that obscure their identities through trade names, undisclosed websites, or hidden parent and subsidiary relationships. The advisory signals that regulators view opacity itself as a compliance failure.
At the federal level, the FTC has framed commercial surveillance as a distinct policy target and is using its information-gathering powers to build a factual record on how pricing tools operate. The same Section 6(b) authority that compelled surveillance pricing firms to respond also allows the agency to study patterns across companies and markets, which could support future rulemaking, enforcement, or recommendations to Congress. While those processes unfold, the commission is already using case-by-case actions, like the InMarket order, to send a message that undisclosed tracking and repurposing of sensitive data can draw sanctions even before any specific pricing harm is proven.
Consumers, meanwhile, have limited but real tools to respond. In states with broker registries or centralized opt-out systems, residents can reduce the amount of data available to pricing intermediaries by submitting deletion and opt-out requests, then periodically checking whether new brokers have appeared. People can also limit app permissions, especially for location and Bluetooth, and regularly audit which apps have access to sensitive data that could be repackaged into pricing profiles. These steps do not eliminate surveillance pricing, but they can shrink the pool of information that fuels it.
When shoppers suspect unfair or deceptive practices, such as inconsistent prices that are not clearly explained, or rewards programs that seem to penalize certain customers, they can report those concerns directly to the FTC through its fraud reporting portal. Complaints help regulators spot patterns that individual consumers cannot see and can feed into broader investigations of retailers, data brokers, or technology vendors. As the surveillance pricing study continues, those real-world accounts may prove as important as technical disclosures in shaping how policymakers respond.
More From The Daily Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
Grant Mercer covers market dynamics, business trends, and the economic forces driving growth across industries. His analysis connects macro movements with real-world implications for investors, entrepreneurs, and professionals. Through his work at The Daily Overview, Grant helps readers understand how markets function and where opportunities may emerge.
