Cory Doctorow doesn't just critique a new law; he exposes a legislative sham designed to look like progress while delivering nothing but loopholes. In a piece that cuts through the noise of tech regulation, he argues that Maryland's new "anti-surveillance pricing" bill is a masterclass in regulatory capture, drafted so poorly it actually strips consumers of existing rights. For busy readers navigating an economy where prices shift based on their desperation, this is not abstract policy—it is a direct attack on household stability.
The Illusion of Protection
Doctorow opens by dismantling the common excuse that technology moves too fast for lawmakers to keep up. He writes, "While there have been some instances in which this was true, it is far more often the case that there are blindingly obvious answers to tech problems, which our lawmakers and regulators ignore, amidst a rising chorus of warnings about the dire consequences of failing to act." This framing is crucial because it shifts the blame from bureaucratic incompetence to deliberate negligence. The author argues that the problem isn't a lack of understanding, but a lack of political will to confront powerful lobbying interests.
The core of the piece defines "surveillance pricing" not as a clever market mechanism, but as a tool of exploitation. Doctorow explains that when a retailer uses your data to charge you more than someone else for the same apple, they are essentially "devaluing your dollars." He notes that while some economists pitch this as a "Robin Hood of pricing policies," the reality is far darker: "Instead, surveillance pricing is most often used to levy a 'desperation premium' on people who have fewer choices and less leverage."
Surveillance pricing is anything but efficient. Because surveillance pricing is a transfer from consumers to investors, it has the net effect of reducing consumption overall.
This economic argument is particularly sharp. By highlighting how extracting extra money from desperate households reduces their ability to spend on other goods like childcare or entertainment, Doctorow connects a niche tech issue to the broader health of the American economy. Critics might argue that dynamic pricing can lower costs for price-sensitive shoppers, but the author effectively counters this by showing how the system is rigged to target the vulnerable rather than the wealthy.
The Maryland Loophole
The commentary then pivots to the specific failure of Maryland's Protection Against Predatory Pricing Act. Doctorow is scathing in his assessment, calling it "a terribly drafted piece of shit bill that fails to resolve a serious and urgent problem." He points out that the legislation is riddled with exemptions that render it useless. For instance, the bill only covers groceries, ignoring the rampant use of surveillance pricing in car rentals, healthcare, and housing.
Perhaps the most damaging flaw is the "consent" loophole. Doctorow writes, "The bill's first glaring loophole here is how it permits surveillance pricing if a purchaser 'consents.'" He reminds readers that in the digital age, consent is a fiction, often reduced to clicking "I agree" on terms no one reads. This effectively allows companies to bypass the law entirely by bundling surveillance pricing into their standard terms of service.
Furthermore, the bill exempts "promotional offers" and "temporary discounts," terms that are so vague they cover almost every price tag in a store. Doctorow notes, "Since the bill doesn't define either of these words, it effectively grants every grocer in the state an easy way to evade the law entirely." He also highlights the exclusion of loyalty cards and subscription models, which are the primary vehicles for this type of price gouging.
The Removal of Recourse
Even if a consumer manages to prove they were victimized, the law offers no path to justice. Doctorow explains that the bill excludes a "private right of action," meaning individuals cannot sue violators. Instead, they must petition the state Attorney General, who may choose not to act. "All this bill lets you do is petition the state Attorney General's office to sue the grocer on your behalf, and if the AG doesn't think you deserve justice, you're shit out of luck," he writes.
This provision is particularly insidious because, as Doctorow points out, the law "pre-empts other rights in Maryland's existing Consumer Protection Act, meaning that it actually gives Marylanders fewer rights than they had a month ago." The argument here is that the legislation was not an attempt to solve a problem, but a strategic move to protect corporate interests under the guise of reform. He attributes this failure to lobbyists and politicians who ignored warnings to secure a political win without doing the hard work of regulation.
Legislation this bad doesn't happen by accident. The omissions and defects in this law aren't there because 'technology moves so fast that lawmakers can't make sense of it.' This is the result of lobbyists and sellout politicians conspiring to rip off the public.
The Bigger Picture
Doctorow contextualizes this state-level failure within a broader trend of federal inaction. He notes that during the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had developed a detailed record of how surveillance pricing transfers wealth from workers to investors. However, he argues that this progress was reversed when the new FTC chairman replaced it with an initiative focused on internal policing rather than consumer protection. The author also highlights how major tech companies like Google are now actively marketing these surveillance pricing tools to merchants, turning the entire ecosystem toward maximizing extraction from the desperate.
The piece draws a parallel to the concept of "algorithmic wage discrimination," where gig platforms use similar data to pay workers less when they are most desperate. This connects the issue of consumer pricing to labor rights, suggesting a systemic shift where algorithms are designed to exploit human vulnerability rather than facilitate fair exchange.
Bottom Line
Doctorow's strongest contribution is his refusal to accept the narrative that this is a complex, unsolvable problem; he proves it is a solvable one that has been deliberately sabotaged. The piece's greatest vulnerability is its reliance on the assumption that state-level action is the primary battleground, potentially underestimating the need for a unified federal standard. However, the verdict is clear: Maryland's law is a dangerous precedent that legitimizes predatory pricing while stripping away the tools consumers need to fight back. Readers should watch for similar "toothless" legislation in other states, as this appears to be the new playbook for regulators under corporate pressure.