Maryland lawmakers have approved a first-in-the-nation bill designed to stop large grocery chains and certain food delivery platforms from charging different shoppers different prices based on personal data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The measure, House Bill 895<\/a> (the \u201cProtection From Predatory Pricing Act\u201d), is set up to take effect on October 1, 2026, if enacted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The push comes as pricing technology gets faster and more personal, showing up in places where families feel every extra dollar. When prices for flights or ride shares jump, people grumble and move on. When the grocery bill starts behaving the same way, it hits differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the center of the bill is a simple idea that most shoppers already assume is true. If you and I grab the same carton of eggs at the same time, the price should not quietly change based on what a store \u201cknows\u201d about us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n HB 895 targets \u201cfood retailers\u201d that operate stores of at least 15,000 square feet and sell food that is exempt from Maryland\u2019s sales and use tax, plus \u201cthird-party food delivery service providers\u201d that facilitate delivery of that tax-exempt food. In other words, it is built for big grocery environments and the platforms that help get groceries to your door.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For those covered businesses, the bill prohibits setting a higher price for that tax-exempt food using dynamic pricing or \u201csurveillance personal data,\u201d and it also restricts the use of protected class data in ways that withhold or deny accommodations or advantages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That last part matters because pricing tools can reflect and amplify real-world inequities if they are fed the wrong signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill uses a definition that tries to capture both the old and the new versions of dynamic pricing. It describes dynamic pricing as a discriminatory practice that can involve varying prices within the same business day based on demand or other factors, and it also covers offering a personalized price to a specific consumer based on personal data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It even calls out the use of artificial intelligence and models that retrain or recalibrate in near real time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just as important are the carve-outs. The text lists many situations that do not count as dynamic pricing under this framework, including promotional offers, loyalty program benefits, discounts with clear eligibility rules, objective cost differences like shipping or location-based taxes, subscription-based pricing, price corrections, and resetting prices after system outages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So yes, the weekly ad and the loyalty discount can still exist, for the most part.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That mix is why the bill is not a blanket \u201cone price forever\u201d promise. In practical terms, it is trying to stop individualized markups that happen because an algorithm thinks you will swallow them, while still allowing discounts, group deals, and cost-based differences that retailers argue are normal business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland treats violations as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, which brings established penalty tools along with it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fiscal note<\/a> summarizes potential civil fines up to $10,000 per violation and up to $25,000 for repeat violations, plus the possibility of misdemeanor penalties under the broader consumer protection framework.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the bill also builds in a speed bump before the state can bring a case. The Attorney General\u2019s office must issue a notice of violation and give the alleged violator 45 days to cure the problem, and if it is cured in that window, enforcement action cannot proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is another limit that will get a lot of attention in consumer circles. The enrolled bill states that it may not be construed to authorize a private right of action, meaning consumers generally cannot sue under this specific section and must rely on the Attorney General\u2019s enforcement choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland\u2019s governor has framed the bill as a response to fast-changing retail tech colliding with a stubborn cost-of-living squeeze. In a state press release celebrating passage of the 2026 agenda, the administration points to the risk that new technology could be used to raise what families pay for essentials, and it highlights digital shelf pricing as a growing concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the government side, there is also a broader warning about how personal data can be turned into a pricing lever. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland legislative analysts cite Federal Trade Commission<\/a> findings that details like location and browser history can be used to target consumers with different prices, and they note that grocery stores are among the consumer-facing businesses that have used data from intermediaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is the bigger story behind the bill. It is not only about a sticker on a shelf. It is about the data exhaust of modern life, and whether your clicks, your routes, or your past purchases should quietly affect what you pay for dinner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland\u2019s timing also makes sense in light of recent reporting about grocery delivery pricing. Reuters reported on an investigation of Instacart that found shoppers could see meaningful price differences for the same items, including differences that reached as high as 23% on some goods, with an average difference around 7% in the analysis Reuters described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After that scrutiny, Instacart<\/a> said it ended a program tied to showing different prices to different customers, according to related coverage. Even if a company backs away from one test, the underlying incentive remains, and the grocery sector is packed with data signals that make experimentation tempting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it is not only apps. Reporting has also shown how messy consumer profiling can be, including an example in which a Kroger shopper in Oregon<\/a> obtained a lengthy profile about them that contained many inaccuracies. That detail matters because pricing systems are only as fair as the data they are built on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland is not acting in a vacuum. California lawmakers<\/a> have considered legislation aimed at surveillance-based pricing practices, and New York\u2019s attorney general<\/a> has pushed a \u201cone fair price\u201d approach as part of a broader package focused on junk fees and price transparency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Colorado has also seen legislative activity in this space, reflecting a growing state-level appetite to regulate algorithmic and data-driven pricing as consumer protection. The details differ, but the direction is similar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For national retailers and delivery platforms, that creates a familiar modern headache. Compliance starts to look like driving through a city where every neighborhood has different speed limits, and the signs keep changing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For consumers, the practical takeaway is not that every price difference is illegal, because the bill explicitly allows many discount and cost-based variations. The more useful question is whether a higher price is being aimed at you because of who you are or what data you have generated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For businesses, the bill is a warning shot that goes beyond grocery aisles. Another section requires many merchants to include a clear disclosure when a price was set by an algorithm or by using personal data, with the statement written directly into the bill text. If this model spreads, shoppers may start seeing that kind of disclosure in more places, not fewer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maryland\u2019s law does not take effect until October 1, 2026, which leaves time for regulators, companies, and advocates to fight over what compliance really looks like. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The press release was published on the Office of Governor Wes Moore<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Maryland lawmakers have approved a first-in-the-nation bill designed to stop large grocery chains and certain food delivery platforms from charging … <\/p>\nA new line around groceries<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: A new legal push against surveillance pricing is targeting how retailers use personal data, and the bigger story is who gets to set your price<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
What \u201cdynamic pricing\u201d means here<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: What Elon Musk has just won in Europe is bigger than a Tesla approval, because it could become the beachhead for a continent-wide driving push<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Enforcement is where it gets real<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why this fight is showing up in stores now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Instacart spotlight and the trust problem<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A patchwork is forming beyond Maryland<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Also Read: What this teenage entrepreneur built for blackouts looks far bigger than a school project, because portable energy is where outages turn personal<\/a><\/h4>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
What shoppers should watch next<\/h2>\n\n\n\n