“While the bill wasn’t intended to prevent discounts, the writing on the page did just that” as corporate pushback kills Colorado’s surveillance pricing legislation

Colorado’s attempt to regulate how companies use personal data for pricing has hit a roadblock as corporate pushback led to the suspension of a proposed bill. The legislation, introduced by state Representative Javier Mabrey in February, aimed to prohibit companies from setting prices and wages based on consumers’ personal data.

According to Politico, the bill was part of a broader national movement, with five states, including California, Georgia, Illinois, Colorado, and New York, introducing similar legislation to address concerns about surveillance pricing. This practice, also known as dynamic or individualized pricing, allows companies to tailor prices to individual online shoppers using their personal information.

“While the bill wasn’t intended to prevent discounts, the writing on the page did just that,” said Rachel Beck, executive director of the Colorado Competitive Council, a local business group that opposed the state’s legislation. The council proposed an amendment that would permit the use of behavioral data, like purchase history, for offering discounts.

Corporate resistance leads to significant changes in state-level pricing regulations

Major companies, including DoorDash, Verizon, and United Airlines, mounted opposition to the Colorado bill. Representative Mabrey ultimately voted to suspend his own legislation, believing that lobbyists had influenced his colleagues’ positions. He acknowledged that arguments about discounts likely resonated with legislators.

The pushback against surveillance pricing regulations has been consistent across states, with companies arguing that they use consumer data to offer lower prices and targeted discounts. Business groups have emphasized that such regulations could hurt consumers during times of economic uncertainty by preventing beneficial pricing practices.

This development in Colorado reflects a larger pattern of corporate influence on surveillance pricing legislation. In New York, the original bill was significantly modified and incorporated into the state budget bill, requiring only disclosure when algorithms use personal data for pricing rather than outright prohibition.

The situation highlights the vacuum left by federal inaction, as the Federal Trade Commission’s investigation into surveillance pricing was shelved by FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson after President Donald Trump took office. This has left states attempting to regulate the practice individually, though they continue to face substantial resistance from business interests.