Companies are charging ahead with AI, aiming to squeeze every red cent out of our grimy paws. Well, they have to pay for AI somehow, right? Expect:

1) prices will be hidden so you have to use an app to see them. This allows…
2) prices will no longer be shared. The aim is to charge everyone the most they will bear, so if you are profiled as wealthy, ignorant, or really need the product - expect to pay more.
3) What's more, you won't even know it. (see point 1, AI can display different prices to different profiles)

Quick hits:
2:47 Online age verification is one way AI is getting new data is to match up individual data with shopping history.

5: 33 Delta seeks to use AI to price fares at the "pain points" of each individual.

9:30 Walmart using digital displays to hide price increases . You will have to use their app to see prices for some of their products.

11:10 Kroger eliminating prices from shelves/products replaced with rotating digital displays that you must wait until the price of the product you want is displayed. Using loyalty members data to train the model. Demand pricing - changing prices by time of day and how much the AI feels you need the product.

Summary:

Sucks to be us. Loyalty cards are a real trap, but you will charged more you if you are not a loyalty member.

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.


AI Price Gouging: Corporate Greed Is Out of Control

I plan to pioneer and sell fake AI profiles to get everything I want on sale because the computer will think I'm poor and opposite.

AI needs severe regulation, or it's going to be a real problem.

the world would be a better place with another careington event.

Lol, privacy and anti-discrimination laws will keep that in check.

For as much as I despise the ambulance-chasing lawyers, they are salivating over the chance to get rich off of this.

Big business better proceed judiciously or they'll get taken to the cleaners.

This will probably backfire if done.

Quote:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

More government is never the solution. If customers don't like these models they will shop somewhere else.

Or find a homeless person as a straw buyer for groceries.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

More government is never the solution. If customers don't like these models they will shop somewhere else.

Or find a homeless person as a straw buyer for groceries.

---

You might have accidentally stumbled onto a means of ending homelessness. Between selling narcotics and getting a payout from employed people as straw buyers, they can finally move up!

JW said:

---

This will probably backfire if done.

---

Indeed it will. Will ruin brand names. When it comes to groceries, shoppers have their store preferences and habits but can easily switch to alternatives since there are more stores available.

Also puts standard grocery pricing strategy (loss leaders, etc.) upside down. Quality for the price, convenience, variety of selection, in that order. Monkey around with that pricing and shoppers will not be happy.

Quote:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

While I share your concern with AI, yes, smart business people and anyone that knows history and economics will disagree with this. What you are calling for is price controls. Price controls lead to lack of supply and ultimately famine. This is a known and expected outcome.

I see this as clearly violating the equal protection clause (14th amendment) of the constitution. You can't charge people differently based on profiling. Surely this is obvious.

Go to the damn store and pay cash

UntoldSpirit said:

---

I see this as clearly violating the equal protection clause (14th amendment) of the constitution. You can't charge people differently based on profiling. Surely this is obvious.

---

Uhhhhh, the 14th Amendment has no application to what a private business does.

Im Gipper said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

I see this as clearly violating the equal protection clause (14th amendment) of the constitution. You can't charge people differently based on profiling. Surely this is obvious.

---

Uhhhhh, the 14th Amendment has no application to what a private business does.

---

No but Truth in Advertising laws as well as Deceptive Trade Practices will apply.

Equal opportunity may be applicable. If a company charges my neighbor and I different prices and part of that appears to be based on demographics; there should be a pretty easy discrimination lawsuit.

True!

Though I don't think what he have now will cover it. This is something we need new laws on. Many aspects of AI will need to be reigned in.

Waffledynamics said:

---

AI needs severe regulation, or it's going to be a real problem.

---

More government is rarely the right answer.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Equal opportunity may be applicable. If a company charges my neighbor and I different prices and part of that appears to be based on demographics; there should be a pretty easy discrimination lawsuit.

---

That's not an equal protection issue. That's a civil rights law issue. Again, 14th amendment does not have any bearing on private businesses.

But discrimination based on being rich isn't a protected class that I know of! You'd need to have discrimination that's unlawful. Not all discrimination is!

Over_ed said:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

When I buy in larger volumes or more frequently than you do, why shouldn't I be allowed to get a discount?

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

More government is never the solution. If customers don't like these models they will shop somewhere else.

Or find a homeless person as a straw buyer for groceries.

---

I disagree with some of the replies - this is already happening - and people still fly Delta. So I don't expect a populist pushback to substantially slow this.

The shopping someplace else really doesn't work for me; they all exchange data and use governmental data we are forced to provide. In Texas, at least, give me your address and I will tell you the value of your house.

The value of your assets, matched to your credit card numbers, loyalty cards, and transaction history, provides plenty of info for profiling. Hoovering up this data is the first step in building these massive AI models.

I'll say it again, as I said with businesses not taking cash, we are losing all privacy and implicitly consenting to a future state wherein business and government is able to punish us for every perceived transgession. Even the transgression of having assets,Not the country, or world that I would want to live in.

At this point, only laws (or intepretation of rights) can disincentivise this.

lb3 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

When I buy in larger volumes or more frequently than you do, why shouldn't I be allowed to get a discount?

---

With these AI models, it isn't the volume they are rewarding/penalizing. It is characteristics like where do you live, how much are you worth, how many kids do you have?

If you are on board with this, go for it.

I'm old. :-)

Over_ed said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

More government is never the solution. If customers don't like these models they will shop somewhere else.

Or find a homeless person as a straw buyer for groceries.

---

I disagree with some of the replies - this is already happening - and people still fly Delta. So I don't expect a populist pushback to substantially slow this.

The shopping someplace else really doesn't work for me; they all exchange data and use governmental data we are forced to provide. In Texas, at least, give me your address and I will tell you the value of your house.

The value of your assets, matched to your credit card numbers, loyalty cards, and transaction history, provides plenty of info for profiling. Hoovering up this data is the first step in building these massive AI models.

I'll say it again, as I said with businesses not taking cash, we are losing all privacy and implicitly consenting to a future state wherein business and government is able to punish us for every perceived transgession. Even the transgression of having assets,Not the country, or world that I would want to live in.

At this point, only laws (or intepretation of rights) can disincentivise this.

---

Delta isn't charging based on profiling. Loyalty programs are specifically allowed. Charging based on occupancy or other factors is allowed.

Here is Grok's take:

"Contract Law and Transparency: Businesses generally have flexibility to set prices, but they must avoid deceptive practices. If customers discover they're being charged differently based on perceived wealth, it could lead to claims of unfair business practices or breach of contract, especially if pricing isn't transparent."

I don't know of an example of charging an individual differently because they can pay more. And especially not if they are hiding that fact. I would be interested in examples of that.

I still think it is obviously unconstitutional to charge based on profiling individuals If there are any consumer protection laws at all, this would surely apply.

How are they going to get a hold of my financial info? Not legally. Will it make a guess based on my skin color? That's a violation of the 1st amendment I would guess. Lots of failure still to come - as is typical with AI. 1 step forward a million steps back.

Quote:

---

I still think it is obviously unconstitutional to charge based on profiling individuals

---

Nothing in the constitution prevents a private business from profiling individuals.

There's nothing to support your belief it's unconstitutional. Stop asking AI. It's worthless for discussion boards.

There are a number of posters here that know far more about the constitution and laws than Grok does.


Consumer protection laws are the ways to fight this

Quote:

---

Will it make a guess based on my skin color? That's a violation of the 1st amendment I would guess

---

What?

Im Gipper said:

---

True!

Though I don't think what he have now will cover it. This is something we need new laws on. Many aspects of AI will need to be reigned in.

---

Truth in Advertising is FTC. Deceptive Trade Practices tend to be more state based and thus state AGs. So enforcement may vary between states.

I forget the name of the exact state agency but gas station pumps are highly supervised for weights and measures and accuracy. And if a station owner is skimming, so to speak, the fines can be very heavy.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I still think it is obviously unconstitutional to charge based on profiling individuals

---

Nothing in the constitution prevents a private business from profiling individuals.

There's nothing to support your belief it's unconstitutional. Stop asking AI. It's worthless for discussion boards.

There are a number of posters here that know far more about the constitution and laws than Grok does.


Consumer protection laws are the ways to fight this

---

Since the 14th amendment is equal protection under the law, why wouldn't that include consumer protection laws? If the 14th amendment only applies to protected classes, can I sentence a white male to more severe penalties based on that? Private businesses may have latitude but they are required to follow laws which would include consumer protection, and would presumably not exclude people who aren't in protected classes.

Go ahead and educate me on why that's wrong. That's not sarcastic.

This is will test deceptive trade practices laws everywhere.

Quote:

---

Since the 14th amendment is equal protection under the law, why wouldn't that include consumer protection laws?

---

No. But it's plain language it applies to what "States" cannot do (deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)

The power to create consumer protection laws is an inherit power of the States and left to them under the 10th Amendment.

Quote:

---

If the 14th amendment only applies to protected classes, can I sentence a white male to more severe penalties based on that?

---

A State sentencing, white people more severely, but clearly violate equal protection.

A private business treating white people differently would not. But it would violate Federal law, and the laws of likely every State.

(You are mixing up 14th amendment and Civil Rights laws protected classes I mentioned above it appears. Race is a protected class).

Quote:

---

Private businesses may have latitude but they are required to follow laws which would include consumer protection,

---

Correct!!

Quote:

---

and would presumably not exclude people who aren't in protected classes.

---

Consumer protection laws apply to most all consumers generally. Sometimes there are laws in place that differentiate for transactions over a certain dollar amount or even the consumer is a company over a certain size.

the most cool guy said:

---

This is will test deceptive trade practices laws everywhere.

---

It could, but if the business tells you the pricing is dynamic based on the Individual, what law does it break?

As I said, this is new territory and new laws are needed to protect consumers.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Since the 14th amendment is equal protection under the law, why wouldn't that include consumer protection laws?

---

No. But it's plain language it applies to what "States" cannot do (deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)

The power to create consumer protection laws is an inherit power of the States and left to them under the 10th Amendment.

Quote:

---

If the 14th amendment only applies to protected classes, can I sentence a white male to more severe penalties based on that?

---

A State sentencing, white people more severely, but clearly violate equal protection.

A private business treating white people differently would not. But it would violate Federal law, and the laws of likely every State.

(You are mixing up 14th amendment and Civil Rights laws protected classes I mentioned above it appears. Race is a protected class).

Quote:

---

Private businesses may have latitude but they are required to follow laws which would include consumer protection,

---

Correct!!

Quote:

---

and would presumably not exclude people who aren't in protected classes.

---

Consumer protection laws apply to most all consumers generally. Sometimes there are laws in place that differentiate for transactions over a certain dollar amount or even the consumer is a company over a certain size.

---

OK. Thanks.

But can a State pass a consumer protection law that only applies to individuals under a certain income? Wouldn't that violate the 14th amendment?

Transactions over a certain dollar amount or companies of a certain size does not violate individual protection.

Im Gipper said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

This is will test deceptive trade practices laws everywhere.

---

It could, but if the business tells you the pricing is dynamic based on the Individual, what law does it break?

As I said, this is new territory and new laws are needed to protect consumers.

---

Do you have any idea of how much signage that would require both outside and inside each store? A veritable crap ton, that's how much. And shoppers seeing those signs will NOT respond well to that.

I was in the grocery business for a couple of years with my late first husband. Margins are very small in that industry. Not sure it would even be worth the hassle and expense, even if you didn't lose customers over something like that.

Quote:

---

Do you have any idea of how much signage that would require both outside and inside each store?

---

Depends on the type of store and State law!

Quote:

---

And shoppers seeing those signs will NOT respond well to that.

---

100% agree! I don't think we will see any wide term use of this "model" in our lifetimes

lb3 said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

IMO, there should to be a law allowing everyone the opportunity to pay the same price, but I'm sure some of our business folks are going to disagee.

---

When I buy in larger volumes or more frequently than you do, why shouldn't I be allowed to get a discount?

---

Or conversely, if I'm willing to pay more because of convenience or the relative value of a dollar to me why shouldn't the retailer be allowed to maximize what they'll sell it to me for. I shake my head at the cost of a gallon of gas near my office but if rich people are willing to pay it then more power to them.