Your Data Might Determine How Much You Pay for Eggs
If you’re near Rochester, New York, the price for a carton of Target’s Good & Gather eggs is listed as $1.99 on its website. If you’re in Manhattan’s upscale Tribeca neighborhood, that price changes to $2.29. It’s unclear why the prices differ, but a new notice on Target’s website offers a potential hint: “This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data.”A recently enacted New York State law requires businesses that algorithmically set prices using customers’ personal data to disclose that. According to the law, personal data includes any data that can be “linked or reasonably linked, directly or indirectly, with a specific consumer or device.” The law doesn’t require businesses to explicitly state what information about a person or device is being used or how each piece of information affects the final price a customer sees. The law includes a carve-out for the use of location data strictly to calculate cab or rideshare fares based on mileage and trip duration but not for other purposes.
The law also requires that the disclosure is “clear and conspicuous.” Target’s disclosure is not the easiest to find–a customer would have to know to click the “i” icon next to the price of an item, then scroll to the bottom of the pop-up. In the past, the courts have held that it’s not always reasonable to assume that a customer will click on “more information” links when it’s not required.
https://www.wired.com/story/algorithmic-pricing-eggs-ny-law/
like this
Lasslinthar, frustrated_phagocytosis, aramis87, joshg253 and dandi8 like this.
Thoralf Will
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •I have phased out eggs quite some time ago.
FundMECFS
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •And the law should have mandated an accessible explanation for how the price is determined based on your data.
queermunist she/her
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •I really hate the kind of liberal reform where they recognize that something is obviously bad, but instead of banning it they just require that the business discloses the information. Heaven forbid we restrain businesses or interfere in the market in any way!
And incredibly the only other party thinks that forcing them to disclose is too much regulation. 🤡
Malgas
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with New York that I had to look it up, but Rochester and Tribeca appear to be at opposite ends of the state and are presumably not served by the same physical Target store. Displaying the actual price at a location near you seems completely reasonable to me, if that's what they're doing.
But yes, there should be a mandate to explain what data is being used and how.
like this
SuiXi3D and deliriousdreams like this.
aramis87
in reply to Malgas • • •Tribeca is a neighborhood in Manhattan. Everything in Manhattan is more expensive, simply because of the cost to rent the store. [Not denying there are other factors, but that will be a big one, simply because Manhattan cannot grow outward any more.]
Rochester is a large city in the north of New York State, on the banks of Lake Ontario. It has plenty of room to grow out - and it's surrounded by rural counties. Eggs are cheaper there simply because there are more chickens and less humans than there are near Manhattan.
Again, there are unfortunately other factors in play. But surely they could've used a better example than the price of eggs in two such disparate parts of the state?
like this
deliriousdreams likes this.
https://lemmy.ssba.com/u/Ebby
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •I don't think Target is either complying with the law nor violating it; I don't think it applies whatsoever and they just added the disclosure anyway.
Different stores have different prices based on geolocation. There's nothing new with that. But if that reflects on the website, an algorithm didn't use personal data to determine anything.
What I do think, besides incompetence, may be a desensitizing campaign numbing customers to the practice possibly for a future rollout or drum up opposition.
like this
deliriousdreams likes this.
Bronzebeard
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •Is... "Physical location of the store you're currently standing in" considered personal data? Because that's what is determining the price difference. Real estate prices are not the same in these two places. That changes the costs the store is offsetting.
There's no way this author didn't know that was what caused the difference in prices in this example.
What a terrible Way to try to back up your point.
like this
deliriousdreams likes this.
Powderhorn
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •Oregon has had a law on the books for decades that grocers need to price everything the same within a given region. This is part of how grocery circulars are practical. The added expense of printing a different flyer for each store (and then working with the paper to zone correctly, but single-copy is still going to be an issue) negated the increased income from store-to-store pricing that allowed for high margins in some cases.
I don't remember the last time I looked at a grocery ad -- wait, no, I do ... it was May 2023 -- so this is of less relevance as we transition to apps, but this doesn't really seem to be about collecting personal data so much as "prices vary geographically," which isn't really news.
Toneswirly
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •ɔiƚoxɘup
in reply to Toneswirly • • •TehPers
in reply to Toneswirly • • •pinball_wizard
in reply to alyaza [they/she] • • •This has been going on for awhile.
I get better (online) prices on everything since I de-googled myself.