The Political Economy of Widespread Algorithmic Retail Price Discrimination

The views expressed in this text are the sole responsibility of the author and cannot be attributed to Compass Lexecon or any other parties.

Introduction

Traditional forms of price discrimination—such as temporal pricing by airlines and hotels, student and senior discounts, coupons, loyalty programs, and quantity-based discounts—will soon appear modest in scale and complexity compared to the emerging wave of surveillance-enabled, data-driven price discrimination poised to transform both consumer markets and upstream supply chains. Advances in algorithmic pricing, combined with informational asymmetries that increasingly favor sellers, allow firms to approximate each buyer’s maximum willingness to pay with unprecedented precision, raising the prospect of significant shifts in consumer surplus, wealth distribution, purchasing power, and overall welfare. Although these practices do not constitute inflation in a technical sense, they may nonetheless mimic or exacerbate inflationary pressures in consumer perception—particularly in high-weight sectors such as housing and healthcare—thereby generating political and economic repercussions of a scale not seen since the major ideological confrontations of the twentieth century. With the law largely silent on price discrimination directed at end consumers, these developments risk provoking reactive and potentially destabilizing policy responses, including price controls, a concern underscored by recent legal developments such as National Retail Federation v. James (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2025), which upheld New York State’s algorithmic pricing disclosure mandate. Addressing this challenge requires a coordinated and forward-looking response: economists must analyze welfare effects in a general-equilibrium framework that accounts for income and distributional consequences; legal scholars must translate economic insights into coherent legal principles; legislatures should enact evidence-based policy rather than respond to momentary public pressure; and the executive branch should resist blunt price controls in favor of efficiency-neutral distributional tools.