Seattle Bans Grocery Pricing Practices Based on Personal Data
On September 22, Seattle’s City Council cast a 7-2 vote to prohibit specific grocery pricing strategies that leverage personal consumer information to determine costs. This initiative received support from Consumer Reports, which worked alongside the mayor’s office in shaping the ordinance.
The idea behind what’s labeled “surveillance pricing” is pretty simple: businesses collect information about individual customers, feed that data into a pricing model, and adjust what prices those customers see. A report from the Federal Trade Commission, released in January 2025, noted that techniques exist to gather information from various sources, such as browsing history, precise location, and even mouse movement or items in an online cart.
It’s worth noting that this practice of shopping surveillance isn’t something new.
Picture yourself rushing to the store to grab dinner ingredients, while a system figures out just how much extra you might be willing to pay, considering it’s nearly dinnertime. There’s a concern that grocery stores might adopt a model akin to “surge pricing,” similar to what apps like Uber use, making grocery costs unpredictable based on factors like time of day and demand.
Price Variations for the Same Grocery Items
A December 2025 investigation by Consumer Reports, along with Groundwork Collaborative and More Perfect Union, found that consumers using the Instacart app encounter varying prices for identical items purchased from the same store. Remarkably, nearly 75% of observed products had different price points, with discrepancies reaching as high as 23%.
For instance, a test at a Seattle Safeway revealed that the same basket of groceries could cost anywhere from $114.34 to $123.93, marking a price difference of $9.59 for the same items. The volunteers recorded these prices without actually purchasing anything.
The study suggested that the average price differences observed could add up to an extra $1,200 annually for a family of four, based on Instacart’s estimated grocery spending. But it’s important to emphasize that this figure is an extrapolation rather than a direct measurement of families’ spending over a year.
Instacart, on its part, claimed it assigned customers randomly for pricing tests without using personal or demographic data for those evaluations. The published methodology by the researchers indicated no meaningful correlation between the shoppers’ characteristics and the pricing they received.
On December 22, 2025, Instacart declared it would cease all item price tests on its platform, asserting that the tests did not involve personal data or individual shopping behaviors, while still committing to providing various promotions and discounts.
The Role of Loyalty Programs
Shopping surveillance has been around, especially through loyalty programs, which retailers use to gather detailed information on their customers in exchange for discounts. A May 2025 investigation by Consumer Reports revealed a 62-page profile of an Oregon shopper, Hazem Salem, which contained inaccuracies regarding his gender, income, household size, and education level.
The irony here is that despite the extensive data collection, the grocery chain Kroger couldn’t even get the basic facts straight.
Kroger defended itself by stating that while it doesn’t adjust base product prices based on such data, it does personalize discounts based on past purchases and interactions, with demographic data potentially helping to target those offers.
Future Implications of Seattle’s Ordinance
The newly approved bill, C.B. 121267, addresses large grocery stores, any that contain groceries along with other merchandise, and various delivery services. It explicitly includes random price differences as a form of prohibited pricing discrimination. Key provisions of the pricing rules are set to take effect on September 1, 2027.
Importantly, the legislation maintains discounts available to all loyalty program members in Seattle while allowing certain demographic-based discounts that don’t hinge on individual pricing or personal data inferences. Discounts for seniors and military personnel remain unaffected under these new rules.
Yet, this doesn’t answer what kind of offers retailers will provide in practice.
Councilmember Maritza Rivera, who opposed the bill, expressed concerns that it could undermine loyalty programs and potentially lead to higher grocery prices. If a policy is meant to safeguard consumers, it should be examined closely to ensure it doesn’t strip shoppers of beneficial discounts.
The bill stipulates annual reports on grocery pricing, comparisons with nearby cities, and insights into the availability of loyalty programs.
I think businesses should compete for my grocery dollars. Show me a better price. Explain discounts clearly so I can judge their value. However, if that deal is based on secret assessments of my income or online habits, I’m not interested. Feeding a family shouldn’t mean agreeing to be tracked like that.
What are your thoughts on this? Does Seattle’s measure seem like a sensible move for consumer rights, or is it an overreach by the government?
