CDT Urges DC Council to Ban Surveillance Pricing in Bill B26-0667

What the bill would do

CDT submitted its statement, dated October 30, 2026, for the Committee on Public Works and Operations hearing held on October 19. The bill is the Surveillance Pricing Prohibition Amendment Act of 2026. It would ban the practice, which it calls "surveillance-based price discrimination," by classifying it as an unfair, deceptive, or abusive trade practice under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

CDT defines surveillance pricing as a seller's use of consumers' personal data to target selected consumers for their willingness to pay more, and to set individualized prices accordingly. The letter is signed by Travis Hall, Sydney Saubestre and George Slover. It is addressed to Committee Chairperson Brianne K. Nadeau.

CDT's case against the practice

According to CDT, advances in digital technology, including artificial intelligence, have made surveillance pricing easy for sellers to adopt. The group says the lack of any comprehensive data privacy law leaves the collection and sale of personal information unbounded. Sellers and data brokers can therefore build detailed profiles, drawing on purchases, searches, finances, employment, web-browsing and social media history.

CDT says this is different from dynamic pricing that follows overall supply and demand, and from transparent, uniform discounts for groups such as students, seniors or veterans. In its view, surveillance pricing replaces visible terms with a hidden assessment of each shopper. It argues that the targeted higher price makes consumers pay more than they otherwise would, that they cannot practically detect or avoid it, and that it brings no offsetting benefit to consumers or competition.

The group also raises a privacy concern. Because the practice rewards companies for collecting ever more intimate data, CDT says it creates a stronger financial incentive to expand surveillance of customers.

On discrimination, CDT cites a ProPublica analysis of The Princeton Review's ZIP-code pricing for online SAT tutoring. According to the letter, customers in heavily Asian neighborhoods were nearly twice as likely to be quoted a higher price. It also says the harms fall hardest on people with few options, including people with disabilities. It notes that a household with a disabled adult already needs roughly 28 percent more income to reach the same standard of living.

Responding to objections and exemptions

CDT addresses industry warnings that the bill would end discounts consumers value. It says discounts offered on published terms, and prices that move with overall supply and demand, are different in kind and would not be affected. It also says the claim that personalized pricing lowers prices is not supported by research, and points to the FTC's note that published discounts already reach price-sensitive shoppers without relying on personal data.

The group opposes limiting the ban to certain markets, arguing that sellers in every market have access to broad consumer data and the same pricing incentives. It urges the Council to avoid exemptions that weaken the bill, and says it has analyzed exemptions proposed in other states. It asks lawmakers to reject amendments that would:

• apply the prohibition only to price increases, because without transparent pricing there is no baseline against which to measure an increase;
• apply only to individuals, which could let sellers craft targeting so that at least two people share the characteristics used;
• add transparency requirements that sellers can meet with vague information that keeps pricing practices hidden.

What it means

The statement shows how advocacy groups are shaping the details of state-level rules on personalized pricing as the bill moves forward. CDT says it stands ready to help the Council ensure that any amendments are "sound and clear" and do not create loopholes or ambiguity. For retailers and data brokers in the District, the debate over exemptions and transparency rules will determine how far any ban reaches. The letter also notes that CDT has filed comments with the Federal Trade Commission on its proposed policy statement on personalized pricing, so the issue is under discussion at both the federal and local level.