How to Avoid AI “Surveillance Pricing” When You Shop Online with a 3‑Tab Decision Tree

Author Marco

Marco

Published on

One-screen summary

  • Who this is for: Anyone shopping online who wants a low-stress way to check whether a price (or discount) might be changing based on personal data, behavior, or context.
  • What decision it supports: Buy now vs keep comparing vs switch to a more transparent seller.
  • How to use it: Open three parallel shopping contexts (three tabs/windows), compare the same item and the all‑in checkout total, then follow the decision tree.

This method is about risk reduction and verification, not proving intent. Regulators and watchdogs repeatedly highlight the same problem: pricing can be opaque, and as a shopper you often can’t tell whether a change is dynamic (context/demand), randomized experimentation, or individualized “surveillance pricing.” (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer) (https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-practices/instacart-ai-pricing-experiment-inflating-grocery-bills-a1142182490/) (https://www.reuters.com/business/delta-air-assures-us-lawmakers-it-will-not-personalize-fares-using-ai-2025-08-01/)

What “surveillance pricing” means (and why the middlemen matter)

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is actively investigating “surveillance pricing” and, importantly, it’s not framed as “a single website changing a number.” In its July 2024 announcement, the FTC described the practice it’s probing as third‑party intermediaries using AI plus consumer data—including factors like location, demographics, and browsing/shopping history—to help set targeted prices. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-issues-orders-eight-companies-seeking-information-surveillance-pricing)

That “middleman” point matters for your shopping strategy. If the logic behind a price is influenced off‑platform, you may never see an obvious explanation on the page—only the final number and a nudge to check out quickly. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-issues-orders-eight-companies-seeking-information-surveillance-pricing)

In early 2025, the FTC published initial staff findings indicating that a wide range of personal data can be used to set individualized prices, including granular behavioral signals such as mouse movements and cart behavior. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer)

Put those together and you get a clear, shopper-relevant takeaway:

Also: regulators are investigating, but that does not mean every observed price difference is confirmed illegal conduct. Reuters’ reporting on the FTC inquiry emphasizes this is an investigation into targeted pricing based on personal data—useful framing for why shoppers may want self‑help verification while policy catches up. (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ftc-looking-into-targeted-pricing-based-personal-data-2024-07-23/)

The anxiety-reducer: a 3‑tab workflow you can repeat

If the inputs to pricing can include who you are (or appear to be), where you are, and how you behave while shopping, then the calmest move is to create three “worlds” that are similar enough to compare—but different enough to flush out unstable pricing.

The FTC’s 2025 staff findings are a strong reason to treat “session context” as meaningful: if behavioral interactions can be signals, then comparing across contexts is a sensible detection tactic. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer)

Consumer Reports’ advocacy work supporting California’s proposed prohibition on surveillance pricing (AB 446) adds a practical, plain-language point: detectability is hard, and simple experiments like changing browser/cookies/location are often the kind of “try this and see” approach that reveals differences. (https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-reports-supports-california-prohibition-on-surveillance-pricing-ab-446/)

And the FTC’s “work ahead” update makes the behavioral side explicit: harms are greatest when pricing is opaque and shopping around is made difficult, including through friction and urgency tactics that discourage comparison. (https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2025/01/surveillance-pricing-update-work-ahead)

So the goal of the three tabs is simple:

  1. See the price in your normal context.
  2. Remove or reduce identity signals.
  3. Change another high-impact context signal (often location or browser/profile).
  4. Only then decide—and only after confirming the all‑in checkout total, because extra fees and pressure selling are a known transparency problem online. (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices)

The 3‑Tab Decision Tree (copy/paste friendly)

3‑TAB PRICE CHECK (DECISION TREE)

START
  |
  v
Pick ONE specific item (same store, same item/variant, same cart).
  |
  v
TAB 1 (Baseline): your normal session.
Note: item page price + any discount + all‑in checkout total.
  |
  v
TAB 2 (De‑identified): logged out OR private browsing window.
Open the same item. Note the same three numbers.
  |
  v
TAB 3 (Different context): different browser/profile and/or location context.
Open the same item. Note the same three numbers.
  |
  v
Do Tab 1 / Tab 2 / Tab 3 match?
  |
  +--> YES
  |      |
  |      v
  |   Is the all‑in checkout price clear (no surprise fees added late)?
  |      |
  |      +--> YES -> Buy with confidence.
  |      |
  |      +--> NO  -> Treat as a transparency red flag; keep comparing/switch seller.
  |
  +--> NO
         |
         v
Is the difference transparent and easy to compare (no friction/urgency to stop you)?
         |
         +--> YES -> Decide on terms you accept, then re-check all‑in total.
         |
         +--> NO  -> Assume higher risk (individualized pricing or experiments);
                     shop around or choose a more transparent alternative.

Why this framing is careful: Consumer Reports’ Instacart investigation notes uncertainty about whether personal or demographic data drives specific price tests, while still emphasizing opacity and experimentation. From the shopper’s perspective, the practical risk is similar—you can pay more than someone else without an obvious reason—so cross‑context verification is still useful. (https://www.consumerreports.org/money/questionable-business-practices/instacart-ai-pricing-experiment-inflating-grocery-bills-a1142182490/)

How to run the 3 tabs without turning it into a project

You don’t need a perfect “scientific” setup. The sources point to the same reality: the system can be opaque, inputs can be broad, and the best consumer move is to compare and avoid urgency. (https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2025/01/surveillance-pricing-update-work-ahead)

Step 1: Lock the comparison to “same cart”

Consumer investigations into Instacart describe concurrent multiple price points for identical items at the same store/time across shoppers—that’s the “same cart, different price” problem. Keep your comparison aligned to one product and one cart so you’re actually testing price stability, not different items. (https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2025/12/new-report-exposes-instacarts-hidden-price-games/) (https://groundworkcollaborative.org/work/instacart/)

Step 2: Tab 1 = baseline reality

Use the session you were already shopping in. This captures whatever signals may already be present—login state, browsing/shopping history, and the behavioral context the FTC says can matter. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer)

Write down three fields:

  • Item price shown
  • Any discount shown
  • All‑in checkout total (once you reach that screen)

Step 3: Tab 2 = remove identity signals you can easily remove

Use a logged‑out view or a private window as your “less attached to you” comparison context—an approach directly aligned with the “change browser/cookies” style detectability experiments referenced by Consumer Reports advocacy. (https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-reports-supports-california-prohibition-on-surveillance-pricing-ab-446/)

Again: item price, discount, all‑in total.

Step 4: Tab 3 = change another major context signal

The FTC’s July 2024 description of surveillance pricing explicitly includes signals like location, and its framing highlights that data can be used via third‑party intermediaries. (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-issues-orders-eight-companies-seeking-information-surveillance-pricing) Consumer Reports advocacy also points to “change … location” as one of the kinds of shopper experiments that can reveal detectability issues. (https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/consumer-reports-supports-california-prohibition-on-surveillance-pricing-ab-446/)

The simplest version is: use a different browser/profile and, if feasible, a different location context. You’re not trying to identify the exact cause—just checking whether the price is stable across contexts.

The “all‑in price” check: where transparent pricing often breaks down

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a major consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices that includes pricing transparency issues such as extra fees and pressure selling. (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices)

That matters because even if the item price looks consistent across tabs, the final total can still shift late in the process. Your three-tab check should therefore include a final “same screen, same total” confirmation.

A clarity-first way to do it:

If you find a mismatch: what you can (and can’t) conclude

A mismatch is a signal, not a diagnosis.

What the sources support:

What the sources don’t give you:

  • A reliable, universal consumer “opt out” that works everywhere.
  • A clean way to distinguish, from the outside, between dynamic pricing, randomized tests, and individualized surveillance pricing in real time.

That gap is worth stating plainly. Even the FTC’s consumer-facing update emphasizes comparison shopping and resisting urgency, rather than promising a simple switch you can flip to avoid surveillance pricing entirely. (https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2025/01/surveillance-pricing-update-work-ahead)

So your decision rule can be simple:

  • If prices converge and the all‑in total is clear, proceed.
  • If prices diverge and transparency breaks down, shop around or switch.

A quick “proof-of-life” reality check: industry pushback exists

It’s also true that some companies publicly draw a line between dynamic pricing and personalized pricing. Reuters reported that Delta assured U.S. lawmakers it will not personalize fares using AI—an example of how firms may deny identity-based personalization even while acknowledging pricing optimization debates. (https://www.reuters.com/business/delta-air-assures-us-lawmakers-it-will-not-personalize-fares-using-ai-2025-08-01/)

That’s another reason the 3‑tab method is framed as verification, not accusation. You’re checking whether the price you’re about to pay is stable across contexts—then deciding how much opacity you’re willing to accept.

Optional: keep your own “receipt trail” without turning it into surveillance

When pricing feels opaque, the most empowering thing is often just having your own record: what you saw, what you paid, and whether the all‑in total shifted between contexts.

If you already track spending, a privacy-first tracker like Monee can help you save a quick category tag and note for the final all‑in total—without ads or trackers and with data kept under your control. (Product information provided)

What’s coming next (policy signals, not predictions)

Several of the sources are about investigations and policy—useful for understanding why this topic isn’t going away:

The practical shopper takeaway stays the same regardless of the policy timeline: verify across contexts, resist urgency, and prioritize transparent all‑in pricing. (https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2025/01/surveillance-pricing-update-work-ahead) (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices)

Printable decision aid: the 3‑Tab Price Check Card

Print this section or copy it into a notes app. The goal is to keep the check short, calm, and repeatable.

THE 3‑TAB PRICE CHECK CARD (PRINTABLE)

Item name / link:
______________________________________________________________

Store / platform:
______________________________________________________________

Cart is identical across tabs?   [ ] Yes   [ ] No (fix and re-check)

TAB 1 — Baseline session (normal browsing)
- Item price shown: ______________________
- Discount shown (if any): _______________
- All‑in checkout total: __________________
- Any friction/urgency that blocks comparison? [ ] Yes [ ] No

TAB 2 — Logged out OR private window
- Item price shown: ______________________
- Discount shown (if any): _______________
- All‑in checkout total: __________________

TAB 3 — Different browser/profile and/or location context
- Item price shown: ______________________
- Discount shown (if any): _______________
- All‑in checkout total: __________________

DECISION
1) Do all three tabs match on item price/discount?
   [ ] Yes -> Go to (2)
   [ ] No  -> Treat as higher-risk opacity; shop around or switch seller

2) Is the all‑in checkout total clear and stable (no extra fees added late)?
   [ ] Yes -> Buy with confidence
   [ ] No  -> Treat as a transparency red flag; keep comparing

Notes (screenshots taken, what changed, anything unclear):
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

This decision aid aligns with the core consumer defense emphasized across the sources: when pricing is opaque and comparison is discouraged, you protect yourself by making comparison easier—across independent contexts—and by confirming the final, all‑in price before committing. (https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2025/01/surveillance-pricing-update-work-ahead) (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices)

Sources:

Discover Monee - Budget & Expense Tracker

Coming soon on Google Play
Download on the App Store