Colorado lawmakers are again trying to regulate the use of new price-setting technology, this time taking aim at algorithms that crunch mountains of individualized data on customers to adjust how much each person pays for groceries, hotel stays and other items.
, which generally would prohibit the use of that technology to set individualized prices or wages, is part of a growing national focus on companies’ use of “surveillance pricing.” Companies, particularly tech firms, have gathered enormous amounts of personal data on American consumers, including down to the individual level.
Supporters of such legislation say that trend has opened the door for retailers, pharmacies, airlines and other industries to plug that data into algorithms and determine how much one person is willing to pay — and then adjust the price based on factors like potential customers’ location, race, income or level of desperation.
They want lawmakers to rein in the practice, amid broader concerns about data privacy and the ever-increasing cost of living.
“Corporations have long sought to set prices based on what consumers are willing to pay for a product,” said Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer with the American Economic Liberties Project, which supports surveillance-pricing regulation. “The effect of surveillance pricing makes that price-setting process much more efficient to exploit customers’ personal data, to predict how much an individual consumer is willing to pay.
“And it is ultimately a price-maximizing force, because that willingness to pay (translates to providing) the highest price, or the pain point price, for each individual consumer in the market.”
HB-1210, which is sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, already passed the state House on a 39-24 vote in late March. On Tuesday, it cleared its first committee hearing in the Senate. It now needs approval by the full Senate before it can move to Gov. Jared Polis’ desk.
The technology is still emerging, and its uses vary. A TV station in Minnesota , vacuums and car seats were more expensive on Target’s app when a reporter was standing closer to the store than when they were farther away. Nearly 14 years ago, the Wall Street Journal higher prices for hotel bookings. By examining zip code-level data, ProPublica were costlier in areas with more Asian residents.
Another study from last year, in which shoppers , found that prices shifted, from customer to customer, at the same Safeway or Target locations for products like eggs, cereal and peanut butter, according to the New York Times in a story last year.
And several federal lawmakers last year after its president told investors that the airline wanted to increase the use of artificial intelligence technology to influence prices. that it had never used nor plans to use a “fare product … that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal information or otherwise.”
The system can work in the other direction, too, with the technology used to set wages based on workers’ individual data.
More Perfect Union, a left-leaning news outlet, for Lyft and Uber to sit in a room and compare the rates they were offered for the same rides. Those rates differed more often than not.
Business groups and companies argue that price surveillance allows them to adjust prices up and down depending on demand and need, and that it can help drive specialized discounts to consumers. In , the Federal Trade Commission wrote that the technology could be used for “tailored offers to customers.”
But, the report continued, it could also increase prices — or it could be used to offer fewer discounts to individuals who just got paid.
To regulate the practice, lawmakers in several states and in Congress have introduced legislation curbing price surveillance. Colorado’s bill would generally prohibit price surveillance, though the bill includes exemptions for government agencies and when prices shift based on factors like delivery time.
If passed, the bill would be the strongest legislation of its kind in the United States, Hepner said.
Colorado lawmakers weighed similar legislation last year but then shelved it. In both 2024 and 2025, Democrats another type of algorithm that’s used to set rents for apartments and other rental properties. That legislation passed in 2025, only to be vetoed by Polis.
The governor does not appear to have much more interest in a broader effort to curtail surveillance pricing. Polis, who has been skeptical of lawmakers’ past efforts to regulate tech companies, signaled his concerns with the new bill through a spokeswoman Tuesday night.
“Governor Polis is concerned with policies, including price fixing and restrictions on demand-informed pricing, that further interfere with the free functioning of markets,” spokeswoman Ally Sullivan said in a statement. “The governor will review the final legislation if it reaches his desk.”
A swath of business and technology groups oppose the bill. Representatives of those interests testified Tuesday that the legislation was too broad and burdensome.
The groups — including those representing Colorado businesses, national retailers and the tech industry — also repeatedly said that the bill would hamper their ability to offer discounts to customers on an individualized basis.
“Unfortunately, the results of this bill would mean fewer discounts, fewer offers and high costs for consumers,” said Andrew Wood, a regional representative for TechNet, a coalition of major technology companies. In a question that reflects opponents’ public criticism of the bill, the Chamber of Progress, another tech group, showing that 70% of Coloradans opposed the banning of loyalty programs.
Hepner argued that the bill would preserve longstanding discount practices, like publicly available coupons, loyalty programs, and senior or veteran discounts. His group , which found that 78% of likely Colorado voters would support a ban on “companies from using AI or automated systems to charge different prices to different people, or pay different wages to different workers, based on ‘surveillance data.’ ”
Sen. Mike Weissman, one of the Democrats sponsoring HB-1210, said during the hearing that attempts at regulating the practice have been “watered down” in other states.
“I would submit it’s been killed or watered down in rooms like this, by testimony like some of what we heard today — respectfully, not a lot of which was strictly accurate to the bill. We don’t have to be that room, we don’t have to be that legislature, we don’t have to follow suit. We can do something different.”
The bill is next set for the first of two full votes on the Senate floor. That vote has not yet been scheduled. The legislative session ends May 13.
