[clintonb]

You're thinking of pricing zones—shoppers in Zone A pay a different price than those in Zone B. This makes sense, for example, if shipping costs are higher in Zone B.

The bill in question is about per-shopper pricing (e.g, you and I pay different prices in the same store). This is something Lyft and Uber do, but it's not really possible in retail.

[cogman10]

> This is something Lyft and Uber do, but it's not really possible in retail.

It is possible for retail. For example, you can simply not display the price. You can display a price range. You can use EInk displays which auto-update based on who's approaching the item.

And of course it's infinitely possible in an online store.

One example of how this is being employed is McDonalds trying to push everyone to use the app. They'll give lower prices in app while raising prices on the menu giving a "not using app" tax. That enables them to have flexible per user prices within the app. A store could do the same thing.

[Manuel_D]

How would that work? The barcode on the item doesn't get rewritten, the checkout counter can't distinguish who picked up which exact item. Even if they did assign unique barcodes to each item, what happens if you take the item off the shelf, and put it in someone else's cart? They'd be charged the wrong price for the item.

[estearum]

The way McDonald's does this that they essentially offer discounts that you can only get by using the mobile app, and the mobile app can dynamically price your cart however they wish. All they (or any other business) has to do is to increase their non-mobile prices to squeeze out non-identifiable shopping.

[cogman10]

> the checkout counter can't distinguish who picked up which exact item.

Sure it can, cameras and facial recognition.

Identify a person when they enter the store. Track them with overhead cameras as they move throughout the store. Set the price for the individual when they get to checkout. It barely requires any extra infrastructure in most stores.

You don't need a unique barcode per item, you simply need to be able to identify the person purchasing the item at checkout.

Barcodes today don't contain price information (except for meat AFAIK. But then you'd mostly just need to change it to be weight instead of price).

[rootlocus]

The store could make it mandatory to swipe your fidelity care before calculating your prices. They already do something similar with specialized promotions.

[Manuel_D]

If we're including promotions or membership discounts, then coupons fit this definition of price discrimination. And those have existed since the 90s at least.

[Dylan16807]

The problems show up when different people don't have access to the same coupons published by the store. Most coupons are fine.

They haven't had the ability to do the significantly bad kinds of targeting until recently. This is a new problem even if it's similar to old practices at the surface level.

[ndsipa_pomu]

In the UK, it's common for supermarkets to have loyalty cards (e.g. Tesco Clubcard) and then they display prices along with the price for using a loyalty card. Then, they just apply the discount (which varies according to the product) when you swipe your card before paying.

[clintonb]

Your plan fails in a few ways.

Refreshing the content on an electronic shelf label (ESL) takes about 30 seconds, and multiple people can view a product simultaneously. Unless the store is giving everyone AR glasses, people will notice the price discrepancy.

This assumes you have sufficient data to actually recognize a shopper such as facial ID or some form of iBeacon for every single product for which you wish to implement price discrimination. Basic ESLs cost $3 to $12, depending on size and use very little energy. Adding a camera means more energy, so a bigger battery and more cost.

Using in-app discounts is the most likely way to implement this, which I am okay with. Shoppers are willingly trading their data privacy for a discount.

[Gigachad]

I think viewing it at as a discount is framing it wrong. It’s more a fee for not using the app, and if you use the app you’ll get charged the highest price McDonald’s has decided you will pay.

Should this be legal is a question you could argue both ways, but in my opinion society will be worse off with per customer pricing.

[mschuster91]

> Using in-app discounts is the most likely way to implement this, which I am okay with. Shoppers are willingly trading their data privacy for a discount.

I'm not OK with this. Simple reason, it leaves the wide masses with no other option than to sell their data to survive.

[fzeroracer]

> Using in-app discounts is the most likely way to implement this, which I am okay with. Shoppers are willingly trading their data privacy for a discount.

Your mistake is assuming it's a discount, when it's not. For example, Safeway near me charges exorbitant prices for goods which are anywhere from 30-50% lower in the app. What they're doing is the same as your average dark pattern, you're only getting the real price using the app otherwise they charge a no-app fee. And even then you can't tell what the real price is supposed to be, because the app will tailor discounts to your shopping behavior.

Shoppers can and have noticed the price discrepancy [1] which is why this legislation is happening in the first place. If the price isn't the price then the whole basis of capitalism and consumer choice falls apart because there's no way to make a proper determination if Store A is cheaper than Store B.

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-...

[cogman10]

> Refreshing the content on an electronic shelf label (ESL) takes about 30 seconds

Today's, yes, but that's really not a technology limit. EInk displays have much faster refresh rates. The main limitation is the communication, but that's a solvable problem with a smart enough networking mesh.

> multiple people can view a product simultaneously

You track the people's position. If multiple people are crowded around the same product then you can pick a price for both customers. Might not work well for crowded stores, but in that case you probably can just maximize the prices anyways as a lot of people are currently shopping.

> This assumes you have sufficient data to actually recognize a shopper such as facial ID or some form of iBeacon for every single product.

No, you just need 1 customer ID on entrance to the store. Everything else can be done by tracking their position with overhead cameras. You don't need to put a camera on every product.

[grogenaut]

part of the reason I don't go there anymore. I noticed recently taco bell in my area no longer asks about their app, just takes my order.

[bko]

I think McDonalds dynamic pricing is great. Every time I checkout the app there is some crazy deal. Sure its not always something I want but I'm not necessarily competing w/ the other items on the menu. If there's no deal on something I want, I check BK or similar chains.

[amazingamazing]

The article says loyalty programs and https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/H... makes no mention of this store restriction. Just retailer.

It’s unclear to me why transportation demand pricing is allowed but not delivery.

I expect the outcome of this to be prices raised for everyone and then loyalty discounts per group.

[cogman10]

> It’s unclear to me why transportation demand pricing is allowed but not delivery.

I don't think it should be allowed. It's predatory. It allows a company like Uber and Lyft to see things like "Oh, you are going to a hospital, then I'm going to apply a 10% surcharge because you are probably desperate".

It also works against the drivers. Uber/Lyft see things like "This person is logged on for 8 hours, they are desperate, so let's give them lower rates and worse routes."

[alex43578]

Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to price the product differently? For an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out are different situations.

For Uber/Lyft, booking a ride into the middle of nowhere carries a cost for the driver that isn’t present when booking a ride to the airport.

A flat fee per mile doesn’t make sense. A flat fee per seat doesn’t make sense. Grocery stores already price segment via coupons, sales, and loyalty programs - this is just an extension of that.

[cogman10]

> Why shouldn’t a company be allowed to price the product differently? For an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out are different situations.

Obviously acceptable. But I'm talking about two people placing an order for the same ticket, same airline, same rewards program and getting different prices because the airline knows something about their private life. For example, maybe the airline has gotten information that one person is going to a funeral and thus are more willing to pay a higher price.

Everything about this encourages corporate espionage on private citizens which I'm opposed to. I'd rather not have google calendar secretly sharing my entries with delta so they can in turn determine what ticket price I might be willing to pay.

There's also not market fundamentals which can correct this situation. Back to the airline example, for any given route you are limited by the number of carriers to that location. Airports are physical things with limited capacity which naturally leads to monopolies and oligopolies. That means you can't just "pay someone that's not doing that" as you only have 2 or 3 options for most locations and they all want to participate in that scheme.

[9dev]

That's one thing, but charging two people for the same route differently is what the parent comment was getting at, and I agree with them.

[afc]

You're literally saying "an airline, booking a flight 6 months out, 6 days out, or 6 hours out" is not "charging two people for the same route differently", completely missing the point of alex43578's excellent question.

[9dev]

I'm not. alex43578 was shifting the goalposts from the point cogman10 was making; I acknowledged what he said, but it was besides the point. An airline charging differently depending on the time ahead of flight is sensible. An airline charging differently depending on the buyer's home address is discrimination.

[DocTomoe]

Just for clarification: Does this affect intraday price changes, and how much if this is AI vs. 'standard database operations'?

I'm thinking of scenarios such as 'Oh, we're going to have a heatwave between 14:00 and 19:00, let's make popsicles 9 cent more expensive for everyone' or 'hm, that particular brand of soda sells extremely good today, let's hike the price'/'this noodle soup gets new stock later today, let's lower the price to clear out the shelf'

Because with electronic signage, that is very possible.

[derektank]

Yeah, I think time-based algorithmic pricing is good and helps reduce shortages. As long as everyone can get the same price at the same time, I have no issues with how that price was arrived at. What concerns me is different consumers being offered different prices at the same time.

[irishcoffee]

It’s interesting, no matter what the sign says, the cost is determined at the checkout. I think you missed the point.

This is about profiling people buying through apps.

I guess it’s neat someone is trying to do something about grocery prices, this won’t move the needle. Still nice to have in the books.

Now if only the governer could figure out how to get the Key bridge built instead of firing the company and starting over… that would be cool.

“Yeah it’ll be built by 2028!” At this point I doubt it’ll be finished in my lifetime.

[derektank]

If you look at the actual text of the bill, it’s much more expansive than simply profiling people. It defines dynamic pricing as, “THE PRACTICE OF VARYING THE PRICES OF CONSUMER GOODS OR SERVICES WITHIN A BUSINESS DAY BASED ON DEMAND OR OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING THROUGH THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OR MODELS THAT RETRAIN OR RECALIBRATE BASED ON RECEIVED INFORMATION IN NEAR REAL–TIME.”[1]

This absolutely would ban changing the price in the middle of the day in response to changes in temperature, as the parent comment suggested.

[1]https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/bills/hb/hb0895f.pdf

[NiloCK]

This is possible in retail, or will soon be.

Canada's major grocery chain has migrated entirely to LCD price tagging that can receive OTA updates. There are now no paper price labels in the store.

The same chains have extensive camera coverage on the entrance / exits of the store.

So pricing can be an optimization function as fine grained as persons currently in the store.

Cameras on the aisles as well can enforce that individual tags update while nobody is within 15 feet, etc.

It's hard to even talk or think about without without sounding (and becoming!) conspiratorial. Add a little data from our trusted partners and they can jack specific prices according to urgency - eg, floral bouquets when you're en route to a dance recital.

[clintonb]

The electronic shel labels use e-ink. Their refresh time is around 30 seconds. What happens if two shoppers are looking at the same product?

[NiloCK]

From my comment:

> Cameras on the aisles as well can enforce that individual tags update while nobody is within 15 feet, etc.

[Paradigma11]

Since you get a location and time stamped receipt these shenanigans would be completely trivial to detect.

[Gigachad]

It’s hard to talk about without sounding conspiratorial because it literally is an unfounded conspiracy. The impracticalities of this scheme are immediately obvious and no evidence of it ever actually being implemented in physical retail exists.

[NiloCK]

I find this comment hard to square with another of yours in the thread:

> ... If they have your message history and see your mum is dying, they can spike flight tickets for example. And they will know exactly the highest amount you can afford for it.

In my own head, this was the the most far-fetched piece of my own comment!