You’re browsing for flights to Greece. Round trip costs $800. Work’s hectic, so you wait. A week passes and you check again. Same flights, same dates. Now it’s $1,200. The system didn’t just adjust the price. It adjusted the price for you.
Welcome to surveillance pricing, where companies mine your data, track your clicks, and charge based on what they think you’ll pay. Manitoba just became the first province to push back. Bill 49, tabled by the NDP government, would ban retailers from using personal data like browsing history, location, or past purchases to set individual prices. The question now is whether Ottawa will follow.
At his first press conference as NDP leader on Monday, Avi Lewis flagged the legislation and raised concerns about artificial intelligence being used to charge people differently. The goal is transparency. Critics argue these tactics erode fairness and turn shopping into a guessing game rigged against the consumer.
“That word ‘personalized’ does a lot of work,” said Vass Bednar, managing director of the Canadian SHIELD. “Firms are able to infer from data we volunteer and data they get elsewhere.” She noted that while businesses always had pricing power, using personal data to set prices feels increasingly deceptive. “It’s not the dollar amount. It’s the principle. We’re moving away from flat, accessible prices.”
Flight prices have fluctuated for years based on demand and booking patterns. That’s familiar territory. What experts warn is different now is how this pricing model is bleeding into everyday retail. Bednar pointed to online grocery platforms like Instacart, where consumers could be charged more for diapers or bread based on their purchasing history. A U.S. research study found school districts paying more than triple for the same supplies on the same day, a stark example of how algorithms can price discriminate.
The Washington Post disclosed that subscription prices are set using personal data. Sony’s PlayStation briefly tested dynamic pricing on digital games. These aren’t isolated experiments. They’re part of a broader trend where companies extract the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay, not the price the market naturally settles on.
“The real risk is that this practice is spilling over into traditional retail,” Bednar said. Where supply and demand once shaped price tags, firms are now targeting individual wallets with surgical precision.
Manitoba’s Bill 49 is a first step. It would prohibit any practice where retailers tailor prices to individuals using personal information. That includes location data, browsing habits, and past transactions. The legislation reflects growing unease about how much companies know and how they’re using it.
South of the border, at least 24 states introduced bills in 2026 to regulate algorithmic pricing. The proposals vary but share common threads: transparency, restrictions on surveillance pricing, and limits on how sensitive data can be weaponized in pricing decisions. Some states are pushing for outright bans. Others want disclosure requirements so consumers know when they’re being targeted.
Canada has been slower to act. The federal government said it’s monitoring the rise of algorithmic pricing but hasn’t announced new regulations. The Competition Bureau published a report earlier this year based on public consultations. It flagged concerns about anti-competitive behaviour and lack of transparency, though the findings don’t represent the Bureau’s official stance yet.
“We continue to monitor the use of algorithmic pricing and remain vigilant with respect to developments that have the potential to disrupt competition in Canada,” the Bureau stated in an email. Under current law, algorithmic pricing isn’t explicitly prohibited. It could face scrutiny if it leads to collusion or abuse of market dominance, but those cases are hard to prove and even harder to prosecute.
Bednar stressed there’s no smoking gun showing Canadian retailers are deploying surveillance pricing at scale. But she said the practice is here to stay, and a national conversation is overdue. “We need to decide what kind of marketplace we want,” she said.
The political stakes are worth noting. Lewis, who recently took over as NDP leader, is already positioning his party as a champion of consumer fairness. Highlighting Manitoba’s move puts pressure on the federal Liberals and Conservatives to respond. Both parties have been cautious on tech regulation, wary of alienating business interests or being seen as heavy-handed.
But consumer frustration is real. Shoppers feel the squeeze when prices seem arbitrary or inflated without explanation. Trust erodes when the system feels rigged. That creates political openings, especially in ridings where cost of living dominates kitchen table conversations.
Ottawa has options. It could introduce transparency rules requiring companies to disclose when prices are personalized. It could ban the practice outright, as Manitoba is attempting. Or it could expand the Competition Bureau’s powers to investigate and penalize discriminatory pricing. Each approach has trade-offs, and each will face lobbying from industry groups that argue personalized pricing benefits consumers by matching supply with demand.
That argument rings hollow when a parent pays more for school supplies or groceries because an algorithm decided they could afford it. Pricing should reflect value and competition, not digital surveillance.
The clock is ticking. As more provinces and states act, federal inaction looks less like caution and more like indifference. Canadians deserve to know when they’re being charged differently and why. They deserve a marketplace where transparency isn’t optional.
Manitoba has drawn a line. The question is whether Ottawa has the courage to do the same.
