A gallon of milk in Baltimore could soon cost you more than it costs your neighbor, not because of a sale or a coupon, but because an algorithm decided you’d pay it. Maryland Governor Wes Moore wants to make sure that never happens. In April 2026, Moore announced legislation that would ban grocery retailers, including major chains like Walmart, from using shoppers’ personal data to charge them individualized prices at the register.
“We’re not going to let corporations use Marylanders’ personal data to squeeze them at the grocery store,” Moore said in the announcement. His office has not yet released the bill number or named its legislative sponsors, details expected to surface as the measure moves through the General Assembly.
The practice at issue is known as surveillance pricing. Retailers or third-party vendors collect data on a customer’s location, browsing history, purchase habits, and other digital signals, then feed that information into algorithms that adjust what each person pays. Moore’s proposal would prohibit that model in grocery stores, require retailers to disclose any dynamic pricing practices, and establish enforcement authority to back up the rules.
Why groceries, and why now
Grocery prices have been a persistent sore spot for Maryland families. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food-at-home prices rose more than 25% between 2020 and early 2025 nationally, and shoppers are still adjusting. Moore’s office framed the bill around three priorities: affordability, transparency, and data privacy, arguing that the checkout line is the wrong place for opaque algorithmic experiments.
The reasoning is hard to argue with. Food is not optional. Unlike a plane ticket or a hotel room, where consumers have come to expect fluctuating prices, a carton of eggs carries an implicit promise: the price on the shelf is the price everyone pays. Surveillance pricing breaks that promise quietly, potentially charging more to shoppers in certain ZIP codes or to customers whose purchase history suggests they are unlikely to drive to a competitor.
Maryland also has a running start on data privacy. The state’s Online Data Privacy Act, known as MODPA, was signed into law in May 2024 and took effect on October 1, 2025, establishing definitions of personal data and giving the Office of the Attorney General enforcement tools. The new grocery bill would extend that framework into retail pricing specifically, closing a gap MODPA left open.
The federal evidence behind the bill
Moore’s proposal did not emerge in a vacuum. The Federal Trade Commission has been investigating surveillance pricing since July 2024, when it issued compulsory orders to eight companies that market algorithmic pricing tools built on consumer data. Those orders, part of a formal 6(b) market study, targeted the intermediaries sitting between raw shopper data and the prices that appear on screens and shelf tags.
In January 2025, the FTC published interim findings confirming that a wide range of personal data, including location and browser history, is being used to set individualized consumer prices. Then-Chair Lina Khan stated that the study revealed companies “are collecting vast amounts of Americans’ personal information” to target pricing, underscoring the breadth of data flowing into these systems. The commission also found that third-party intermediary tools may directly influence the prices and offers individual shoppers receive, meaning the pricing pipeline involves technology vendors most consumers never see or hear about.
The FTC’s study remains ongoing, with no final report published and no binding federal rules proposed. But the decision to use formal information-gathering powers, rather than informal inquiries, signals that federal regulators consider the practice serious enough to warrant structured investigation. For Maryland, those interim findings provide an evidentiary backbone: state officials are not acting on theory alone but responding to documented federal research showing that algorithmic pricing tied to personal data is already a commercial reality.
What the bill does not yet clarify
For all the attention the announcement has drawn, critical details remain unresolved. The full statutory text has not been made publicly available, which means the precise legal definitions, penalty structure, and exemptions are still unknown.
One of the thorniest questions is where the line falls between prohibited surveillance pricing and familiar forms of discounting. Weekly sales, buy-one-get-one promotions, and loyalty card programs that offer the same deal to every enrolled member look very different from algorithms that quietly adjust a price based on one shopper’s browsing history. But the boundary could get blurry in practice, especially as retailers blend digital coupons, app-based offers, and membership tiers. How regulators distinguish a personalized price from a targeted promotion will likely become a central point of debate as the bill advances.
It is also unclear whether the legislation covers only brick-and-mortar stores or extends to online grocery ordering and delivery platforms, a distinction that matters as more shopping moves to apps and websites. Instacart, Amazon Fresh, and Walmart’s own delivery service all operate in Maryland, and each uses data-driven systems that could fall under a broad reading of the bill.
Retailer silence and the Walmart factor
No major grocery chain, including Walmart, has issued a public response to the Maryland proposal. That silence leaves a basic question unanswered: are retailers operating in the state already using surveillance pricing tools, or is the bill primarily preventive?
Walmart, the nation’s largest grocer by revenue, uses sophisticated data infrastructure across its stores and its Walmart+ membership program. The company has invested heavily in advertising technology that leverages shopper data, but it has not publicly confirmed or denied using individualized pricing algorithms at the shelf level. Other large chains with significant Maryland footprints, including Giant Food and Safeway parent Albertsons, have also stayed quiet.
Their eventual response, whether through lobbying, public statements, or legal challenges, will shape the bill’s path through the legislature. Grocery industry trade groups like the Food Marketing Institute, now part of FMI-The Food Industry Association, have historically pushed back against state-level regulations they view as creating compliance patchworks, and this bill could draw similar opposition.
Privacy advocates and the consumer stake
Consumer advocacy organizations have taken notice of the surveillance pricing debate. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has flagged dynamic pricing tied to personal data as a growing privacy concern, warning that the same tracking infrastructure used for targeted advertising can easily be repurposed to manipulate what individual shoppers pay. Consumer Reports, which has long pushed for transparency in algorithmic systems, has called on both federal and state lawmakers to require clear disclosure when personal data influences pricing.
Maryland is not the only state eyeing algorithmic pricing. Legislators in Minnesota have introduced measures targeting dynamic and personalized pricing practices, and consumer privacy bills in other states have begun to touch on automated decision-making in retail. If Maryland’s bill passes, it would join a growing but uneven collection of state-level rules governing how retailers may use personal data to set prices.
That patchwork creates its own pressure. National retailers operating across dozens of states face the prospect of complying with different standards in different jurisdictions, a complexity that could eventually push the FTC or Congress toward a federal standard. For now, no binding federal rules on surveillance pricing exist, and the FTC’s study remains at an interim stage.
Consumers who suspect they have been subject to unfair individualized pricing can file reports through the FTC’s fraud reporting portal.
What Maryland shoppers should watch for next
The Maryland bill has executive backing and a federal evidence base, but it is still a proposal, not law. Its passage depends on the General Assembly, where the details of enforcement, exemptions, and scope will be negotiated. The strongest confirmed facts are that the governor has formally announced the legislation, that the FTC has documented surveillance pricing as an active commercial practice, and that Maryland’s existing privacy law provides a legal foundation the new bill can build on.
The real test comes when the full text drops and the grocery lobby decides whether to fight, adapt, or wait it out. For Maryland shoppers, the core promise is simple enough: the price on the tag should be the price you pay, no matter what your phone knows about you.
Vince Coyner is a serial entrepreneur with an MBA from Florida State. Business, finance and entrepreneurship have never been far from his mind, from starting a financial education program for middle and high school students twenty years ago to writing about American business titans more recently. Beyond business he writes about politics, culture and history.
