TL;DR: Two people walk into the same grocery store. Same app, same cart, same box of cereal. One pays $4.99. The other pays $5.64. The difference? An algorithm decided one of them would pay more based on their browsing history, location data, and purchase patterns. It's called "surveillance pricing," and it's already happening. Canada's federal NDP tabled a motion on April 13, 2026 to ban it. Manitoba already passed a bill making it illegal, the first province to do so. An Abacus Data poll found 52% of Canadians want the practice banned outright. Meanwhile in the US, the FTC studied the practice, found companies using mouse movements, emotional state, and phone battery levels to set prices, and then did nothing about it.
What Surveillance Pricing Actually Looks Like
Forget coupons and sale prices. Surveillance pricing is when the price tag itself changes based on who's looking at it.
The algorithm draws on everything it knows about you: browsing history, spending patterns, device type, inferred income level, credit history, location, even your medical history. Then it calculates the maximum you're likely to pay, and charges you that [1].
This isn't theoretical. Here are documented cases:
- Instacart tested personalized pricing that charged some customers up to 23% more for identical items at the same store at the same time. They quietly discontinued the practice in December 2025 [2].
- Target used geofencing to switch prices when customers entered a store's parking lot. A TV listed at $499.99 on the app jumped to $599.99 once you were close enough to buy it. Target paid $5 million in civil penalties [2].
- Orbitz figured out Mac users spend more on hotels, and started charging them higher rates than PC users [2].
- Uber discovered riders are more willing to accept surge pricing when their phone batteries are low. In 2016, a data scientist confirmed the company tracked battery levels [2].
- The Princeton Review charged customers more when they lived in zip codes with a higher proportion of Asian residents [2].
As Pascale Chapdelaine, associate professor at the University of Windsor, put it: "The reason they're doing this is to try to get as close as possible to your maximum willingness to pay" [3].
Canada's NDP Tried to Ban It. Parliament Said No.
On April 13, 2026, NDP Leader Avi Lewis (in his first Parliament Hill event as the party's new leader) tabled a motion calling for a federal ban on surveillance pricing [4].
Lewis didn't mince words: "Big Tech is teaming up with retailers, including grocery giants, to spy on Canadians and gouge them even more." He called the practice "unfair, a ripoff, and downright creepy" [4].
He cited US examples he called "downright dystopian": charging higher prices for medicine and thermometers after detecting a parent searching for children's health information. Inflating plane tickets after scanning funeral-related emails [4].
"We can't wait until we inhabit a dystopian retail landscape where every individual is their own target market," Lewis said [4].
UFCW Canada National President Barry Sawyer backed the motion: "We cannot accept the growing use of algorithmic and predatory pricing to squeeze even more out of people" [4].
Parliament voted it down on April 15 [5].
Manitoba Did What Ottawa Wouldn't
While the federal motion died, Manitoba's NDP government had already moved. On March 17, 2026, Finance Minister Adrien Sala introduced Bill 49 (the Business Practices Amendment Act) making Manitoba the first Canadian province to ban personalized algorithmic pricing [6].
The bill doesn't just require transparency. It treats individualized price-setting as an unfair business practice, period. If you use an algorithm to charge different customers different prices for the same product based on their personal data, you're breaking the law [7].
The penalties have teeth:
- Individuals: up to $100,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment
- Corporations: up to $300,000 first offence, up to $1,000,000 for repeat violations
- Courts can order direct compensation to affected consumers [7]
The data it protects against is comprehensive: browsing history, spending patterns, device profiles, inferred willingness to buy, income level, credit history, location, and medical history [7].
"You shouldn't pay more for groceries just because of who you are, where you live, or how you shop," Sala said [6].
Consumer Reports studies cited by Sala found identical grocery products varying in price by up to 13% depending on the customer [6].
The FTC Studied It. Then Shrugged.
In July 2024, the US Federal Trade Commission issued orders to eight companies seeking information on surveillance pricing practices. By January 2025, preliminary findings from six of those companies landed [8].
What the FTC staff found:
- The six intermediary companies worked with at least 250 retail clients: grocery stores, apparel retailers, health and beauty companies, sports betting sites
- Data collected included: precise location, browser history, mouse movements on webpages, items abandoned in shopping carts, IP addresses, cookies, and email addresses
- Inferred data included: emotional state, purchase intent, and willingness to pay
- Tools ranged from direct price-targeting algorithms to consumer segmentation profiles to search-ranking manipulation [8]
The FTC illustrated the concept with a specific example: new parents could be charged different prices after their purchases of baby goods confirmed their parental status [8].
The study was labeled "preliminary, non-exhaustive" and reflecting staff views only. Republican commissioners accused the outgoing Democratic majority of "slowly dripping out information" [8]. No enforcement action followed.
How Big Is This?
Bigger than most people realize. Canada's Competition Bureau found that more than 60 companies in Canada were already using algorithmic pricing as of last year [3]. That's just the ones they know about.
Computer science professor Christo Wilson at Northeastern University has been tracking the practice: "Companies are recording basically everywhere you go and then drawing inferences from that. Massive dossiers about consumers can be created" [3].
He warned: "There are companies collecting these kinds of data and trying to sell this capability as a service" [3].
It's not just Canada and the US. The UK already allows fines of up to 10% of global revenue for companies caught using hidden or biased digital pricing [5]. Several US states have drafted regulatory bills. And as an Abacus Data poll from March 18, 2026 found, 52% of Canadians want the practice banned outright, with another 31% supporting strict regulation [4].
Ontario Premier Doug Ford rejected the idea of a provincial ban on April 16, 2026 [9].
What You Can Do Right Now
Use Private Browsing
Open an incognito or private window before checking prices online. This prevents sites from using your browsing history and cookies to inflate prices. Compare the price you see logged in versus what a "fresh" visitor sees.
Disable Location Services for Shopping Apps
Turn off location access for retail apps in your phone settings. Geofencing (changing prices based on your proximity to a store) requires knowing where you are. Don't give it to them.
Use a VPN
A VPN masks your IP address, which retailers use to infer your location and potentially your income level based on neighborhood data. This is one of the simplest defenses against location-based price discrimination.
Clear Cookies Before Big Purchases
Algorithms track return visits. If you've been eyeing a product, the site knows your intent is high, and may raise the price. Clear cookies, or better yet, use a different browser entirely for the final purchase.
References
- MLT Aikins: Manitoba's Bill 49 and Personalized Algorithmic Pricing (2026)
- CBC News: Are you paying more than your neighbour? It could be 'surveillance pricing' (April 2026)
- BNN Bloomberg: NDP pushing for ban on AI surveillance pricing (April 13, 2026)
- NDP Canada: NDP moves to ban surveillance pricing gouging Canadians (April 2026)
- VOCM: Federal NDP Calls Out 'Unfair' Surveillance Pricing (April 15, 2026)
- CBC News Manitoba: Manitoba bill goes after grocers using predatory pricing (March 2026)
- Mondaq: Manitoba Introduces Restrictions On Dynamic Pricing (2026)
- FTC: Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used (January 2025)
- Global News: Doug Ford nixes idea of grocery surveillance pricing ban in Ontario (April 16, 2026)
Published: April 18, 2026