HB 2481 (Surveillance Pricing)

A dozen people had signed up to speak so the chair apologized and said we'd have only 90 seconds. There were some good questions for other speakers (especially for Josh Marshall of UFCW 3000, who was very knowledgable), so right before my testimony the chari apologized again and said we'd have to hold it to 60 seconds. Everybody on the committee seemed convinced of the need to act on surveillance pricing – other UFCW 3000 panelists and Maya Morales of WA People's Privacy had a great job on that front – so I cut that part out ... and there had been pushback on the private right of action and a request for a right to cure so I focused on that.

Chair Ryu, Ranking Member Barnard, and members of the Committee,

I'm Jon Pincus of Bellevue. I run the Nexus of Privacy newsletter, and served on the state Automated Decision Systems Workgroup in 2022. I strongly support HB 2481.

It's often challenging to explain concepts like "algorithmic discrimination" to people ... but it's very easy to explain "surveillance pricing": they'll charge you more if they think they can get you to pay more.

That shouldn't be legal, and HB 2481 quite rightly prohibits surveillance pricing for retail items in grocery stores. The need for state action is especially clear in this case. As an earlier panelist said, food is not a luxury. Purchases of food are necessary for survival.

Treating violations as an unfair or deceptive business practice under the consumer protection act is appropriate. For one thing, it would indeed be unfair and deceptive! Also, it allows AG enforcement to be complemented with a private right of action. This is an especially important given fiscal constraints on the AGO. And Washington's consumer privacy act, unlike many other states, reduces the risk of frivolous lawsuits by allowing the judge to award defendants attorneys fees.

And please don't add a right to cure, the AGO has testified that a right to cure is a barrier to enforcement — and it adds costs as well.