UNPACKED

← Frontpage

When Your Grocery App Knows Too Much

4h ago · 9 sources · regulation

Dynamic pricing in grocery just hit its first real speed bump.

Maryland’s governor signed the Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, banning grocers and third-party delivery services from using personal data to set higher prices for specific shoppers. The law applies to large food retailers with 15,000 square feet or more and covers tax-exempt food items. Translation. If you are quietly charging different shoppers different prices for milk and eggs, Maryland wants a word.

More than two dozen other states are considering similar legislation, including California, New York and Illinois. The definitions vary, from dynamic pricing to algorithmic pricing to surveillance pricing. That patchwork alone could give compliance teams a migraine.

Instacart already felt the heat. After scrutiny over price testing that showed different prices for the same item at the same store, the company stopped using Eversight technology for those tests. It also agreed to pay $60 million in refunds to settle FTC allegations tied to tactics that raised grocery costs.

Why it matters. Retailers love data. Consumers love deals. They do not love feeling like the deal depends on who they are. As margins tighten and AI tools get smarter, pricing will be the next trust battleground. The grocers that win will be the ones who can personalize without crossing the line from helpful to creepy.

Key facts

  • Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed the Protection from Predatory Pricing Act (HB 895), prohibiting grocers and third-party delivery services from using dynamic pricing or consumers’ personal data to set higher prices.
  • The law applies to large food retailers with 15,000 square feet or more and third-party delivery providers, but only covers tax-exempt food items.
  • More than two dozen other states are considering similar legislation, including Arizona, California, Illinois, Idaho, New Jersey, New York and Washington.
  • Instacart stopped using Eversight technology to price test items after feedback that tests resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store.
  • Instacart agreed to pay $60 million in refunds to settle FTC allegations that it engaged in numerous unlawful tactics that harmed shoppers and raised the cost of grocery shopping for Americans.
  • Maryland defines dynamic pricing as setting a price for a specific consumer based on their personal data, while California’s proposed legislation defines algorithmic pricing as any computational process used to recommend or set a price.
  • 15,000 square feet
  • $60 million
  • more than two dozen

Coverage