LANSING, Mich., is gearing up for a fight over how much your data is worth at the checkout. Michigan lawmakers this spring rolled out a slate of bills aimed at stopping "surveillance pricing," where companies tap into personal data to quietly charge different shoppers different prices for the exact same product or service. The measures go after algorithmic pricing tools and in-store systems that tweak prices in real time based on things like your device type, location, browsing behavior or even your face.
The bills lawmakers filed
Senate Democrats say Sens. Mallory McMorrow and John Cherry introduced a pair of measures on May 20 that would clamp down on surveillance pricing both online and inside brick-and-mortar stores. The package is written to hit sectors such as airlines, rideshares and grocery apps, where digital price shifts are already common. As outlined by Senate Democrats, one bill would ban personalized algorithmic price-setting, while its companion would block certain real-time device- or location-based price displays in retail environments.
How the House bill defines it
House Bill 5771, filed in March, would bolt a new section onto the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and label surveillance pricing an unfair trade practice. The proposal defines surveillance pricing broadly as offering or setting a "customized price" for a specific person or group based on personally identifiable information collected through electronic surveillance technologies. That sweep includes sensors, device tracking, biometrics, machine-learning models and other observation tools. The bill’s text and sponsor list are laid out in the legislative filing, according to Legiscan.
Enforcement and penalties
Under HB 5771, the state would take the lead on enforcement. The attorney general would have authority to seek injunctions and civil penalties to stop violations. In the enforcement section, the bill states that the court may assess the defendant a civil fine of not more than $10,000.00 plus all revenues earned per violation, and it treats each affected transaction or consumer as its own violation. The measure would also narrow private lawsuits tied specifically to the new surveillance-pricing provision while preserving other private remedies that already exist under the consumer-protection statute, according to Legiscan.
How Michigan fits into a national wave
Michigan is hardly alone in trying to get ahead of algorithmic pricing. A Section 6(b) study by the Federal Trade Commission found that companies are already using location, browsing history and other personal data to set individualized prices, and lawmakers around the country have started to react. In April, Governor Wes Moore signed Maryland's Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, which restricts certain kinds of dynamic pricing in grocery stores, according to the FTC and the Office of Governor Wes Moore. New York, for its part, has ordered conspicuous disclosures around pricing experiments and opened inquiries into companies’ practices, including delivery platforms that rely heavily on algorithms, according to the New York Attorney General.
Industry pushback and legal stakes
Retail groups argue that broad bans and strict disclosure rules risk sweeping in ordinary loyalty programs and targeted discounts that shoppers actually like. Those arguments are already being tested in court. The National Retail Federation sued to block New York’s disclosure law and came up short when it failed to win a preliminary injunction, a sign that legal battles are likely as more states move first, according to Reuters. Observers say Michigan’s stiffer penalties and the carve-outs baked into HB 5771 are poised to be central flashpoints if and when the proposals advance.
What's next in Lansing
According to Senate Democrats, the package is headed to the Senate Committee on Economic and Community Development for testimony this week, where both consumer advocates and industry groups are expected to crowd the microphones. "Michiganders deserve to know that the price they see is the same price everyone sees - not a number an algorithm picked because it decided they'd pay more," McMorrow said in a statement to Senate Democrats. Whether the bills can clear committee and survive pushback from retailers and technology vendors will decide how much Michigan shapes the growing patchwork of state rules on personalized pricing.
