Maryland’s 2026 ‘No Surge Pricing in Grocery Aisles’ Bill Has a Blind Spot: It’s Not the Shelf Tags That Change Prices—It’s the Discounts That Change *You*
Maryland’s crackdown is sold as a ban on “Uber-style” grocery price swings. But if promotions and loyalty discounts are exempt, the real pricing power can simply move into personalized “deals.”
By TheMurrow Editorial
March 22, 2026
Key Points
- 1Follow the loophole: HB 895’s carve-out for promotions and loyalty benefits could let personalized discounts recreate individualized prices without changing shelf tags.
- 2Question the villain: AP-cited data found “virtually no surge pricing” after ESL rollout—suggesting the bigger risk is app-driven, data-informed discounting.
- 3Demand definitions: If “dynamic pricing” excludes discount targeting, surveillance pricing may survive as “member prices,” app coupons, and individualized deals.
Maryland lawmakers are preparing a 2026 crackdown on “surge pricing” in grocery aisles. The political message is simple: families shouldn’t walk into a store and find that bread costs more at 5 p.m. than it did at 10 a.m.
The fight, though, is drifting toward the wrong target. Electronic shelf labels—those small digital price tags that can update instantly—make for an easy villain. They’re visible. They feel like a switch waiting to be flipped. They also fit the cultural story we already know from ride-hailing apps.
But the most consequential pricing power in modern grocery retail rarely looks like a flashing shelf number. It looks like a “member price.” It looks like an app-only coupon. It looks like a discount that appears for one shopper and not another—delivered through loyalty accounts and retail data.
Maryland’s proposed ban may curb some kinds of dynamic price changes. Yet as drafted and framed, it risks leaving the most scalable version of personalized pricing untouched: personalized discounts—surveillance pricing in everything but name.
“If the future of grocery pricing is ‘personalized,’ the crucial question is whether the personalization happens on the shelf—or inside the discount.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
What Maryland is trying to ban in 2026—and how it’s being sold to voters
Maryland’s top Democratic leadership, including Gov. Wes Moore, has framed its 2026 legislative push as consumer protection against “dynamic pricing” in grocery stores, a concern sharpened by the spread of electronic shelf labels (ESLs) and their ability to update prices rapidly. The governor’s office has promoted a package meant to protect “Marylanders’ pocketbooks” and address data privacy at the grocery store. (Governor’s press release: governor.maryland.gov.)
The centerpiece is cross-filed legislation: SB 387 / HB 895, described on the General Assembly’s site with a sweeping title and purpose: restrictions on dynamic pricing and the use of “consumer surveillance data” to set a price for goods and services, plus additional provisions touching protected classes and labor/collective-bargaining-related language. (Bill page: mgaleg.maryland.gov.)
Another proposal, SB 889, also targets dynamic pricing and explicitly intersects with the new world of digital retail systems—where price setting can be automated, rapid, and tied to data. (Text summary PDF: mgaleg.maryland.gov.)
The public narrative has been heavily shaped by a specific fear: “Uber-style” swings in the cost of groceries—time of day, weather, demand, even individualized pricing based on surveillance. That’s a potent image, and it’s politically legible. Yet legislative outcomes often hinge on definitions and carve-outs, not headlines.
The centerpiece is cross-filed legislation: SB 387 / HB 895, described on the General Assembly’s site with a sweeping title and purpose: restrictions on dynamic pricing and the use of “consumer surveillance data” to set a price for goods and services, plus additional provisions touching protected classes and labor/collective-bargaining-related language. (Bill page: mgaleg.maryland.gov.)
Another proposal, SB 889, also targets dynamic pricing and explicitly intersects with the new world of digital retail systems—where price setting can be automated, rapid, and tied to data. (Text summary PDF: mgaleg.maryland.gov.)
The public narrative has been heavily shaped by a specific fear: “Uber-style” swings in the cost of groceries—time of day, weather, demand, even individualized pricing based on surveillance. That’s a potent image, and it’s politically legible. Yet legislative outcomes often hinge on definitions and carve-outs, not headlines.
Why “no surge pricing” is a simplifying label
“Surge pricing” is a strong phrase, but it isn’t a legal one. The bills focus on dynamic pricing and surveillance-based pricing, concepts that can be interpreted narrowly (shelf price changes) or broadly (individualized offers).
That distinction matters because, in grocery retail, many shoppers already live in a world where the “real price” isn’t the shelf price at all. It’s the price after membership and app logic has done its work.
That distinction matters because, in grocery retail, many shoppers already live in a world where the “real price” isn’t the shelf price at all. It’s the price after membership and app logic has done its work.
“A ban written for the shelf can miss the price you actually pay.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The carve-out that could swallow the rule: promotions, loyalty, and “temporary discounts”
The fiscal note summary for HB 895 contains a detail that should command more attention than any talking point: the bill’s dynamic pricing prohibition “does not include promotional pricing offers, loyalty program benefits, or other temporary discounts…” (Fiscal note: mgaleg.maryland.gov.)
That exemption is not a minor technicality. It’s the infrastructure of modern grocery pricing.
Retailers increasingly present a layered system:
- Base price (the shelf price)
- Loyalty price / member price
- App coupons, often targeted
- Basket-level deals and other “digital” promotions
Consumers experience that system as a constant negotiation between what is posted and what is unlocked. For some households, the “real” grocery budget depends on stacking offers, using store apps, and playing by membership rules.
A law that bans certain dynamic price moves—but exempts promotions and loyalty benefits—could still allow wide price dispersion across consumers. The personalization wouldn’t need to appear as “the price.” It could appear as the discount.
That exemption is not a minor technicality. It’s the infrastructure of modern grocery pricing.
Retailers increasingly present a layered system:
- Base price (the shelf price)
- Loyalty price / member price
- App coupons, often targeted
- Basket-level deals and other “digital” promotions
Consumers experience that system as a constant negotiation between what is posted and what is unlocked. For some households, the “real” grocery budget depends on stacking offers, using store apps, and playing by membership rules.
A law that bans certain dynamic price moves—but exempts promotions and loyalty benefits—could still allow wide price dispersion across consumers. The personalization wouldn’t need to appear as “the price.” It could appear as the discount.
How individualized pricing can hide inside “discounts”
If one shopper receives a $2-off offer and another does not, two people can pay different final prices without the shelf tag changing at all. If those offers are informed by shopping history or other data signals, the mechanism looks like surveillance pricing even when the optics are friendly.
That’s why the carve-out is the story. It’s the difference between banning a dramatic, visible problem and governing the subtle system that already shapes what people pay.
That’s why the carve-out is the story. It’s the difference between banning a dramatic, visible problem and governing the subtle system that already shapes what people pay.
Consumer advocates’ critique: surveillance pricing is often about the discount, not the sticker
Some of the most pointed analysis comes from groups that support the goal of consumer protection but warn Maryland about how pricing power actually works.
Consumer Reports, in supporting Maryland’s surveillance pricing bill “with amendments,” offers a definition that tracks directly with the loyalty-and-app era: surveillance pricing/personalized pricing can involve not only setting “the price,” but also determining “the discount offered to a consumer.” (Consumer Reports advocacy research: advocacy.consumerreports.org.)
That framing is an implicit indictment of policies that focus on shelf-tag behavior while leaving discount architecture intact. A retailer can claim it doesn’t “change prices” dynamically—while changing individualized discounts dynamically all day.
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) pushes the argument further in testimony. EPIC warns that surveillance pricing can manipulate how consumers perceive value, including by experimenting with pricing and by presenting different “original” prices and markdowns to different people—creating misleading impressions of a deal. (EPIC testimony PDF: epic.org.)
Neither organization argues that all targeted discounts are inherently abusive. The warning is structural: if the law’s definition is too narrow, the most powerful version of surveillance pricing can pass through the “discount” door.
Consumer Reports, in supporting Maryland’s surveillance pricing bill “with amendments,” offers a definition that tracks directly with the loyalty-and-app era: surveillance pricing/personalized pricing can involve not only setting “the price,” but also determining “the discount offered to a consumer.” (Consumer Reports advocacy research: advocacy.consumerreports.org.)
That framing is an implicit indictment of policies that focus on shelf-tag behavior while leaving discount architecture intact. A retailer can claim it doesn’t “change prices” dynamically—while changing individualized discounts dynamically all day.
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) pushes the argument further in testimony. EPIC warns that surveillance pricing can manipulate how consumers perceive value, including by experimenting with pricing and by presenting different “original” prices and markdowns to different people—creating misleading impressions of a deal. (EPIC testimony PDF: epic.org.)
Neither organization argues that all targeted discounts are inherently abusive. The warning is structural: if the law’s definition is too narrow, the most powerful version of surveillance pricing can pass through the “discount” door.
The consumer harm is not only higher prices
Even when a shopper “wins” a discount, a system that personalizes offers can create harms beyond the register total:
- Opacity: Consumers can’t easily know if they got the best available price.
- Unequal treatment: Similar shoppers may face different outcomes, for reasons they can’t see.
- Behavioral pressure: Apps and loyalty programs can nudge purchases and data sharing.
Maryland’s challenge is to protect consumers without outlawing the ordinary promotions people use to stretch budgets—while also not turning “promotions” into a legal safe harbor for individualized pricing.
- Opacity: Consumers can’t easily know if they got the best available price.
- Unequal treatment: Similar shoppers may face different outcomes, for reasons they can’t see.
- Behavioral pressure: Apps and loyalty programs can nudge purchases and data sharing.
Maryland’s challenge is to protect consumers without outlawing the ordinary promotions people use to stretch budgets—while also not turning “promotions” into a legal safe harbor for individualized pricing.
“The most meaningful price change may be the one you never see—because it arrives as a ‘deal’ curated for you.”
— — TheMurrow Editorial
The retailers’ argument: targeted discounts help shoppers—and bans could backfire
Merchants and tech advocates, as reported by Maryland Matters, have warned that bills like SB 387/HB 895 could backfire by chilling “data-driven discounts” and targeted promotions that many consumers depend on. (Maryland Matters: dynamic pricing bill could backfire.)
Their point is pragmatic. Plenty of shoppers already feel that grocery shopping without a loyalty account means paying a penalty. For households that budget tightly, the ability to access targeted promotions can feel less like manipulation and more like survival.
Retailers also argue that “dynamic pricing” is frequently misunderstood. In additional reporting, merchant-aligned voices say algorithms may be used to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and lower prices—not to raise them opportunistically. (Maryland Matters: Moore, Peña-Melnyk make committee appearances to testify.)
Those defenses deserve serious attention. Some price flexibility can mean more markdowns, less spoilage, and better alignment between supply and demand. There is a difference between a store trying to clear perishable inventory and a store exploiting a moment of heightened need.
Their point is pragmatic. Plenty of shoppers already feel that grocery shopping without a loyalty account means paying a penalty. For households that budget tightly, the ability to access targeted promotions can feel less like manipulation and more like survival.
Retailers also argue that “dynamic pricing” is frequently misunderstood. In additional reporting, merchant-aligned voices say algorithms may be used to optimize inventory, reduce waste, and lower prices—not to raise them opportunistically. (Maryland Matters: Moore, Peña-Melnyk make committee appearances to testify.)
Those defenses deserve serious attention. Some price flexibility can mean more markdowns, less spoilage, and better alignment between supply and demand. There is a difference between a store trying to clear perishable inventory and a store exploiting a moment of heightened need.
The political risk: banning the helpful while missing the harmful
Here’s the policy trap Maryland faces:
- Overbroad restrictions could reduce legitimate discounts and harm price-sensitive shoppers.
- Narrow restrictions could stop the theatrical version of “surge pricing” while allowing individualized discounting that feels fair only because it’s framed as savings.
A mature policy would confront that tension head-on, rather than treating “dynamic pricing” as a single phenomenon with a single moral valence.
- Overbroad restrictions could reduce legitimate discounts and harm price-sensitive shoppers.
- Narrow restrictions could stop the theatrical version of “surge pricing” while allowing individualized discounting that feels fair only because it’s framed as savings.
A mature policy would confront that tension head-on, rather than treating “dynamic pricing” as a single phenomenon with a single moral valence.
What the evidence says about electronic shelf labels—and why the panic may be misdirected
Electronic shelf labels have become the visual shorthand for the feared future: instant, algorithmic price changes on staples. Yet a frequently cited piece of evidence suggests the apocalypse hasn’t arrived—at least in one observed case.
An AP report on a study examining prices from 2019–2024 at one grocery chain found “virtually no surge pricing” before or after ESL adoption. ESLs were rolled out in the dataset around October 2022. The researchers estimated that temporary price increases affected about 0.005% of products on any given day before ESLs, rising by only 0.0006 percentage points after ESLs. The same coverage noted that discounts were slightly more common after ESL adoption. (AP News: apnews.com.)
Those numbers matter because they puncture the simplest story: that ESLs naturally lead to constant price spikes. In this dataset, they did not.
The study doesn’t “prove” dynamic pricing never happens. It does, however, suggest that the most visible mechanism (ESLs) may not be the main driver of consumer harm.
If ESLs don’t automatically generate surge pricing, the policy obsession with shelf labels can become a distraction from the more important question: what happens in the hidden layer—personalized offers and data-driven discounts.
An AP report on a study examining prices from 2019–2024 at one grocery chain found “virtually no surge pricing” before or after ESL adoption. ESLs were rolled out in the dataset around October 2022. The researchers estimated that temporary price increases affected about 0.005% of products on any given day before ESLs, rising by only 0.0006 percentage points after ESLs. The same coverage noted that discounts were slightly more common after ESL adoption. (AP News: apnews.com.)
Those numbers matter because they puncture the simplest story: that ESLs naturally lead to constant price spikes. In this dataset, they did not.
The study doesn’t “prove” dynamic pricing never happens. It does, however, suggest that the most visible mechanism (ESLs) may not be the main driver of consumer harm.
If ESLs don’t automatically generate surge pricing, the policy obsession with shelf labels can become a distraction from the more important question: what happens in the hidden layer—personalized offers and data-driven discounts.
Four key statistics worth holding onto
- 2019–2024: the span of the study described by AP—covering years before and after ESL introduction.
- October 2022: when ESL rollout occurred in that dataset.
- ~0.005% of products/day: estimated share experiencing temporary price increases pre-ESL.
- +0.0006 percentage points: the post-ESL change in that share—tiny in magnitude.
- October 2022: when ESL rollout occurred in that dataset.
- ~0.005% of products/day: estimated share experiencing temporary price increases pre-ESL.
- +0.0006 percentage points: the post-ESL change in that share—tiny in magnitude.
2019–2024
The span of the AP-described study, covering years before and after electronic shelf labels were introduced in the dataset.
October 2022
When electronic shelf labels were rolled out in the dataset examined in the AP-covered study.
~0.005%
Estimated share of products per day experiencing temporary price increases before electronic shelf labels, per the AP-described study.
+0.0006 pts
The post-ESL change in the share of products per day with temporary price increases—tiny in magnitude, per the AP-described study.
The real-world case study: the grocery “price” is now a stack of conditions
Ask a shopper what an item costs, and you may get an answer with footnotes:
- “It’s $4.99—unless you have the loyalty number.”
- “It’s $3.49 if you clip the coupon in the app.”
- “It’s buy-one-get-one, but only if you buy two.”
- “It’s cheaper if you shop on a certain day.”
That isn’t a theoretical future. It is the ordinary experience of shopping in many stores now.
The policy consequence is straightforward: a ban aimed at “the price” on a shelf can miss the effective price produced by membership logic.
- “It’s $4.99—unless you have the loyalty number.”
- “It’s $3.49 if you clip the coupon in the app.”
- “It’s buy-one-get-one, but only if you buy two.”
- “It’s cheaper if you shop on a certain day.”
That isn’t a theoretical future. It is the ordinary experience of shopping in many stores now.
The policy consequence is straightforward: a ban aimed at “the price” on a shelf can miss the effective price produced by membership logic.
How a narrow ban could play out
Imagine a retailer that wants to keep prices “stable” on the shelf to comply with a dynamic pricing ban. The retailer could still:
- Keep the posted price constant.
- Use loyalty segmentation to decide who sees which discount.
- Deliver individualized promotions based on purchase history (or other data categories).
From the shopper’s perspective, the market still behaves like a personalized pricing system. The only difference is the interface: instead of changing numbers on a label, the system changes what’s available to you.
Consumer Reports’ warning becomes operational here: discount determination can be pricing determination.
- Keep the posted price constant.
- Use loyalty segmentation to decide who sees which discount.
- Deliver individualized promotions based on purchase history (or other data categories).
From the shopper’s perspective, the market still behaves like a personalized pricing system. The only difference is the interface: instead of changing numbers on a label, the system changes what’s available to you.
Consumer Reports’ warning becomes operational here: discount determination can be pricing determination.
Key Insight
A stable shelf price can coexist with individualized final prices—because “personalization” can be delivered through discounts, not sticker prices.
What Maryland should clarify before 2026: definitions, enforcement, and the “discount loophole”
Maryland’s bills are framed around dynamic pricing and the use of consumer surveillance data. The hardest work isn’t rhetorical; it’s definitional. A law is only as strong as the behaviors it clearly covers and the loopholes it doesn’t.
Three questions are central.
Three questions are central.
1) What counts as “dynamic pricing” when discounts are the main event?
If dynamic pricing is defined as rapid changes to the base price, then the most important channel of personalization—discounts—may remain largely untouched, especially given HB 895’s fiscal note summary carve-out for promotional pricing, loyalty benefits, and temporary discounts.
If lawmakers mean to stop individualized pricing, they may need to address individualized discounts explicitly, as Consumer Reports urges in its framing.
If lawmakers mean to stop individualized pricing, they may need to address individualized discounts explicitly, as Consumer Reports urges in its framing.
2) What counts as “consumer surveillance data”?
The bills’ intent is to stop using surveillance data to set prices. Yet modern retail data comes in gradients:
- Data you knowingly provide (loyalty ID, email)
- Data inferred from behavior (purchase patterns)
- Data tied to devices and apps (not detailed in the provided research, but directly implicated by “surveillance” debates)
EPIC’s testimony raises the stakes by focusing on how such systems can mislead consumers about what counts as a genuine discount.
- Data you knowingly provide (loyalty ID, email)
- Data inferred from behavior (purchase patterns)
- Data tied to devices and apps (not detailed in the provided research, but directly implicated by “surveillance” debates)
EPIC’s testimony raises the stakes by focusing on how such systems can mislead consumers about what counts as a genuine discount.
3) How will consumers know what rules are being applied?
Transparency isn’t a buzzword here; it’s the difference between governance and theater.
If a shopper can’t tell whether a “deal” is universal or personalized, the market becomes less legible. That creates fertile ground for mistrust—even if average prices don’t rise. It also makes enforcement harder, because regulators must detect discriminatory or deceptive patterns in a system designed to look like ordinary promotion.
If a shopper can’t tell whether a “deal” is universal or personalized, the market becomes less legible. That creates fertile ground for mistrust—even if average prices don’t rise. It also makes enforcement harder, because regulators must detect discriminatory or deceptive patterns in a system designed to look like ordinary promotion.
What to clarify before 2026
Dynamic pricing: Does it include individualized discounts, or only shelf/base-price changes?
Surveillance data: What data sources count—explicit, inferred, and device/app-linked?
Transparency: Will shoppers be able to tell whether a deal is universal or personalized?
Surveillance data: What data sources count—explicit, inferred, and device/app-linked?
Transparency: Will shoppers be able to tell whether a deal is universal or personalized?
Practical takeaways for Maryland shoppers—and for anyone watching the state
For readers trying to make sense of the fight, the most useful lens is not partisan. It’s structural: where does personalization enter the transaction?
Here are grounded takeaways based on what Maryland is debating and what advocates and merchants are saying.
- Watch the discount layer, not only the shelf label. The biggest consumer impact may come from loyalty/app ecosystems—especially if legislation exempts promotions.
- Demand clarity about “promotions.” If a bill exempts promotions, ask whether it also regulates how promotions are targeted, priced, and represented (for example, whether “original price” claims can vary by consumer).
- Treat “no surge pricing” as an incomplete promise. A stable shelf price can coexist with individualized final prices.
- Recognize the trade-off retailers are highlighting. Restrictions could reduce targeted discounts that some shoppers rely on; that doesn’t negate privacy concerns, but it complicates simplistic solutions.
- Look for amendments that track Consumer Reports’ definition. If surveillance pricing includes discount determination, policy should not pretend discounts are outside the pricing system.
Maryland is not the only place wrestling with this. But Maryland’s 2026 bills are a sharp test of whether lawmakers can regulate the pricing systems people actually experience—rather than the ones that photograph well.
Here are grounded takeaways based on what Maryland is debating and what advocates and merchants are saying.
- Watch the discount layer, not only the shelf label. The biggest consumer impact may come from loyalty/app ecosystems—especially if legislation exempts promotions.
- Demand clarity about “promotions.” If a bill exempts promotions, ask whether it also regulates how promotions are targeted, priced, and represented (for example, whether “original price” claims can vary by consumer).
- Treat “no surge pricing” as an incomplete promise. A stable shelf price can coexist with individualized final prices.
- Recognize the trade-off retailers are highlighting. Restrictions could reduce targeted discounts that some shoppers rely on; that doesn’t negate privacy concerns, but it complicates simplistic solutions.
- Look for amendments that track Consumer Reports’ definition. If surveillance pricing includes discount determination, policy should not pretend discounts are outside the pricing system.
Maryland is not the only place wrestling with this. But Maryland’s 2026 bills are a sharp test of whether lawmakers can regulate the pricing systems people actually experience—rather than the ones that photograph well.
What to watch as 2026 approaches
- ✓Watch the discount layer, not only the shelf label
- ✓Demand clarity about “promotions” and whether targeting/representation is regulated
- ✓Treat “no surge pricing” as an incomplete promise if final prices can still vary
- ✓Recognize the retailer trade-off: restrictions could chill discounts some shoppers rely on
- ✓Look for amendments matching Consumer Reports’ definition (discount determination as pricing)
T
About the Author
TheMurrow Editorial is a writer for TheMurrow covering trends.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is Maryland trying to ban in 2026?
Maryland’s 2026 proposals—especially SB 387/HB 895—aim to prohibit dynamic pricing and restrict using consumer surveillance data to set prices for goods and services. The public messaging has emphasized grocery stores and concerns about rapid price changes as electronic shelf labels spread. The bills also include other provisions beyond pricing, according to legislative summaries.
Are electronic shelf labels the same thing as “surge pricing”?
No. Electronic shelf labels (ESLs) are a tool that makes price updates easier and faster, but the best-known evidence cited in the debate doesn’t show widespread “surge pricing” after ESL adoption. An AP-covered study found “virtually no surge pricing” before or after ESL rollout in one chain’s data, with only tiny changes in temporary price increases.
What is the “discount loophole” people are talking about?
The HB 895 fiscal note summary indicates the bill’s dynamic pricing prohibition does not include promotional pricing offers, loyalty program benefits, or other temporary discounts. If individualized pricing happens through targeted coupons and member prices, a law that exempts those mechanisms could still allow consumers to pay different final prices based on personalization.
Why do Consumer Reports and EPIC emphasize discounts?
Consumer Reports argues surveillance pricing can involve not just setting the sticker price but also deciding “the discount offered to a consumer.” EPIC warns that personalized discounting can mislead shoppers by shaping “deal” perceptions—for example, through experiments with pricing or by presenting different markdown contexts to different people. Both groups focus on the hidden layer of pricing.
Why are retailers pushing back on these bills?
Retailers and tech advocates argue the proposals could chill data-driven discounts that some shoppers rely on. They also contend “dynamic pricing” is being misunderstood, saying algorithms can be used to manage inventory, reduce waste, and sometimes lower prices rather than raise them. Reporting from Maryland Matters captures those warnings and the broader industry perspective.
If ESLs aren’t causing widespread surge pricing, what should lawmakers focus on?
The evidence cited via AP suggests ESLs alone may not be the primary driver of price spikes. The harder question is how prices are effectively determined through loyalty programs, app coupons, and targeted promotions—especially if those systems use consumer data in ways that produce unequal or opaque outcomes.
