(Credit: ViDI Studio/Shutterstock)
In A Nutshell
Nearly half (48%) would favor a retailer that offers an opt-out from data-based pricing, even if it means missing personalized discounts, while almost nobody would hold the option against a store.
Only 10% of Americans are unconcerned about retailers using personal data to set individualized prices, according to a new survey of 2,000 adults.
Two-thirds (66%) said they would stop shopping at a retailer if they found out it charged them more than another customer based on their data or purchase history.
Most Americans see personalized pricing as less fair than fixed pricing, or no better. Just 30% believe it could actually improve fairness for consumers.
Ask Americans how they feel about retailers using artificial intelligence to charge different people different prices for the same product, and the answer is nearly unanimous. The vast majority are not fans of the practice.
A new nationwide survey of 2,000 adults found that just 10% of respondents said they are unconcerned about the prospect of so-called surveillance pricing, a term for the practice of setting individualized prices based on personal data like browsing habits, location, and purchase history. Among the remaining 90%, most expressed outright concern, while about 28% landed in a neutral middle ground, neither concerned nor unconcerned.
Surveillance pricing is not the same as a clearance sale or a limited-time coupon. It refers to the use of algorithms and consumer data to quietly adjust what each shopper pays at checkout, sometimes without the shopper ever knowing. And while the practice has not yet become standard at most major retailers, it is already on the radar of state regulators. California’s attorney general is currently examining how businesses use data to individualize prices, and New York officials enacted a law last year requiring retailers to post a clear disclaimer if they set prices based on personal data, according to Forbes.
According to the Talker Research survey, conducted online between December 5 and December 10, 2025, roughly six in 10 Americans (62%) said they are either somewhat or very concerned about the practice, with nearly a third landing in the “very concerned” category alone. Another 28% fell somewhere in the middle, a group that could tip in either direction as the public conversation around algorithmic pricing picks up.
Most Americans Say They Would Boycott a Retailer Over Surveillance Pricing
Concern is one thing. Action is another. The survey results point to a public that is willing to back up its discomfort with real consequences for retailers. Asked what they would do if they discovered a store had charged them more than someone else because of their personal data or purchase history, two-thirds of respondents (66%) said they would stop shopping at that retailer entirely. Just 17% said they would keep buying regardless, and the same share (17%) were unsure how they would respond.
Those numbers carry weight for any company considering a move toward individualized pricing. Loyalty programs and product recommendations powered by browsing data have become a normal part of online shopping. Dynamic pricing, where a hotel room or airline seat fluctuates based on demand, is widely accepted if not always popular. But surveillance pricing crosses a different line because it targets the individual rather than the market. A holiday surge that raises prices across the board makes intuitive sense. Being singled out for a higher number because an algorithm flagged a zip code or a spending pattern does not, and the survey data indicates most Americans would respond by taking their money elsewhere.
Americans Are Skeptical That Personalized Pricing Is Fair
Supporters of algorithmic pricing sometimes argue it could benefit shoppers. In theory, a retailer could use data to offer lower prices to budget-conscious consumers or deliver targeted discounts based on loyalty. But when respondents were asked whether personalized pricing would be more or less fair than fixed pricing, the results leaned negative. More than a third (37%) said it would be less fair, while 30% said it could actually be more fair. Another 33% said the fairness level would be about the same either way.
Put another way, a combined 70% of respondents either see personalized pricing as less fair or no better than standard fixed pricing. Only about three in 10 believe the model would actually improve the equation for consumers. For an industry that might try to frame data-driven pricing as a win for both sides, that is a steep hill to climb.
An Opt-Out Could Be a Competitive Edge for Retailers
One of the more revealing findings in the survey centers on consumer choice. Close to half of respondents (48%) said they would be more likely to shop at a retailer that allowed them to opt out of data-based pricing, even if doing so meant missing out on personalized discounts and deals. Another 42% said the option to opt out would not change their shopping behavior one way or the other. Just 10% said it would make them less likely to buy from the retailer.
In practical terms, offering an opt-out carries almost no downside. Nearly half the country would view it favorably, and a negligible fraction would view it negatively. For companies weighing whether to experiment with algorithmic pricing, building in transparency and consumer control from day one looks less like a public relations gesture and more like a way to avoid alienating a large share of potential customers.
Talker Research conducted the poll online during the first half of December 2025, a window that overlapped with the heart of the holiday shopping season. Whether that timing amplified concerns about surveillance pricing or simply captured feelings that persist year-round is difficult to determine from a single poll.
Still, the core takeaway is hard to dismiss. When only one in 10 Americans shrugs off the idea of retailers using personal data to set prices, and two-thirds say they would walk away from a store caught doing it, the message is clear enough: consumers are willing to accept a lot of personalization in their shopping experience, but a personalized price tag is where most of them draw the line.
Survey Notes
Limitations
This survey polled 2,000 American adults online, which means results may not fully represent the views of people who are less active on the internet or who lack reliable internet access, a group that, ironically, might be less exposed to algorithmic pricing in the first place. Online panels can also skew toward respondents who are more digitally aware and potentially more attuned to data privacy issues, which could inflate concern levels relative to the broader population. Additionally, the survey asked about hypothetical scenarios rather than measuring reactions to actual experiences with surveillance pricing, so there is a gap between what people say they would do and how they might behave when faced with a real-world situation. Self-reported data carries the usual caveats around social desirability bias, meaning respondents may overstate their willingness to boycott a retailer. The survey’s timing during the holiday shopping season may have also heightened price sensitivity. No margin of error or confidence interval was published in the source material reviewed.
Funding and Disclosures
No external funding sources or conflicts of interest were disclosed in the published survey results. Talker Research is a research division of Talker Inc., which also operates Talker News, the outlet that published the findings. The dual role of Talker Inc. as both the research conductor and the publisher should be noted, as the organization that designed and fielded the survey also controlled the editorial framing of its results.
Publication Details
Survey conducted by: Talker Research, a division of Talker Inc. Published by: Talker News. Publication date: February 12, 2026. Survey title: “Is ‘surveillance pricing’ the next retail nightmare?” Sample: 2,000 American adults, surveyed online between December 5 and December 10, 2025. Methodology transparency: Talker Research participates in AAPOR’s Transparency Initiative; full methodology is available on the Talker Research Process and Methodology page. A link to the questionnaire is referenced in the original publication. Note: This is a consumer survey and news report, not a peer-reviewed journal paper. No DOI is associated with this publication.
