Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow has asked city staff to investigate whether the city can prohibit surveillance pricing for groceries and other essential items. The directive focuses on pricing that is tailored to individual consumers based on their personal data and would cover items sold online and delivered within Toronto.
What the motion seeks
Chow’s motion directs municipal staff to identify every possible avenue for banning or regulating surveillance pricing that raises costs on groceries, including sales made through online platforms and delivery services operating in the city. Council documents indicate staff are to report back with options next year.
At a news conference ahead of an executive committee meeting, Chow framed the move as a consumer-protection measure tied to broader concerns about affordability. “No one should have a different price based on who you are,” she said, arguing that targeted price adjustments could worsen the burden on households already coping with rising living costs.
How surveillance pricing works
Surveillance pricing — also called personalized or algorithmic pricing — uses data about individual shoppers to estimate how much each customer is willing to pay. Retailers and online platforms can then set different prices, offers or fees for different customers in real time. Advocates for regulation argue this practice can lead to higher bills for vulnerable or less price-sensitive consumers.
Coun. Alejandra Bravo, who seconded the mayor’s motion, described the use of consumer data to maximize per-customer profit as “predatory pricing.” Supporters of the motion say a local ban would shield Torontonians from being charged different rates for the same essential goods based on profiling or opaque algorithms.
Political context and other government responses
Chow’s initiative comes amid mixed responses across Canadian governments. Manitoba is currently examining whether to classify “personalized algorithmic pricing” as an unfair business practice, signaling a willingness to consider legal restrictions at the provincial level.
By contrast, Ontario’s government has resisted broad prohibitions. Premier Doug Ford has publicly opposed a ban on algorithmic personalized pricing, saying he favors free-market competition to help keep prices down. Earlier this year, a provincial New Democratic Party motion to ban surveillance pricing was defeated in April.
Federal efforts have also stalled. A federal NDP motion to ban surveillance pricing online and in stores did not pass. However, the draft of Canada’s initial federal artificial intelligence strategy referenced plans to strengthen privacy rules to prevent inappropriate uses of personal information, explicitly naming surveillance pricing as an example of misuse.
What happens next in Toronto
If city staff identify legal or regulatory pathways, they will bring recommendations back to council as directed in the motion. Those options could range from municipal bylaws to advocacy for provincial or federal policy changes, though the city’s authority to regulate commercial pricing — especially for businesses headquartered outside municipal boundaries or operating on national online platforms — can be legally complex.
Chow’s motion targets groceries and essentials because those purchases are central to household budgets and frequent enough that algorithmic pricing could have a broad impact. The mayor and council allies framed the proposal as a local effort to protect consumers while higher levels of government consider privacy and AI policy reforms.
Implications for consumers and businesses
A municipal prohibition could offer direct protections for residents shopping in Toronto, particularly if it covers delivered goods and online sales within the city limits. But businesses and industry groups may push back on restrictions, arguing that dynamic pricing tools can improve efficiency and help firms respond to supply and demand.
Legal experts say any local regulation would likely intersect with provincial and federal consumer protection, competition and privacy laws. That interplay means Toronto’s review is likely to include legal analysis of what scope the city has to act independently, and what aspects would require collaboration with Ottawa or Queen’s Park.
The city’s findings, expected next year, are likely to shape municipal debate and could influence provincial and federal conversations about whether and how to limit the use of personal data for price-setting. For now, the proposal signals growing municipal interest in curbing algorithm-driven practices that advocates say can harm consumers.
Reporting for this article was based on coverage by CBC Toronto and files from The Canadian Press.
Source: CBC