Stop Surveillance Pricing Now: Equal Prices for Equal Goods

I am writing to demand that you take clear, public, and unequivocal action against personalized (selective) pricing—the practice of charging different people different prices for the same goods or services based on surveillance, profiling, or inferred willingness to pay. This practice is fundamentally unfair, deeply predatory, and incompatible with basic principles of ethical commerce and democratic accountability. Personalized pricing requires unprecedented and invasive surveillance of constituents. Companies monitor individuals’ behavior, location, devices, purchasing history, urgency, and inferred income or vulnerability to extract the maximum possible price from each person. This is not ordinary market behavior. It is covert behavioral manipulation enabled by constant data collection. To be clear about the harm: two constituents standing next to each other, buying the same airline ticket, prescription delivery, or household item, can be charged different prices solely because one searched longer, used an older phone, appeared more desperate, or had fewer alternatives. That is not efficiency. It is exploitation. This practice destroys price transparency, undermines fair competition, and quietly transfers wealth out of your constituents’ pockets and into corporate margins—without their knowledge or consent. Markets cannot function honestly when prices are hidden, individualized, and unverifiable. Personalized pricing cannot exist without surveillance. To tolerate it is to accept that Americans must be continuously monitored simply to pay a fair price. That tradeoff is unacceptable. Equal prices for equal goods are a basic expectation of a fair market, not a privilege contingent on data extraction. Charging people different prices for the same goods—without transparency, consent, or cost justification—is inherently wrong. Doing so through pervasive surveillance makes it worse, not better. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is already happening, quietly and at scale. And silence from lawmakers is not neutrality—it is permission. This is a line-in-the-sand moment: either we defend transparent markets and equal treatment, or we accept a surveillance economy where fairness is replaced by extraction. I am asking you to do the following—clearly and without ambivalence: 1. Publicly declare personalized (selective) pricing to be unethical and unacceptable. No hedging. No quiet statements. 2. Support and advance legislation that bans or strictly limits individualized consumer pricing, particularly when driven by surveillance, behavioral profiling, or opaque algorithms. 3. Affirm that equal prices for equal goods are a baseline requirement of a fair market, and that surveillance-based price manipulation has no place in a democratic economy. Federal and state consumer-protection law already recognizes that unfair, opaque practices causing unavoidable consumer harm are unlawful. Personalized pricing fits squarely within that framework. Silence on this issue will be interpreted as consent, and constituents will draw their own conclusions accordingly. The time to act is now. Not later. Not quietly. Not conditionally. I expect clear public opposition—and I will be watching for it.